Left: Special counsel Jack Smith turns from the podium after speaking about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2023, at a Department of Justice office in Washington (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin). Right: Republican presidential candidate, former President Donald Trump stands on stage at the Libertarian National Convention at the Washington Hilton in Washington, Saturday, May 25, 2024 (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana).
Former President Donald Trump has asked a federal appeals court sitting in Atlanta for a bit of extra time to file a motion opposing the government’s efforts to reinstate the Mar-a-Lago indictment against him and two other erstwhile, would-be co-defendants.
A lower court dismissed special counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents charges against the 45th president in an early summer opinion that sent shock waves through political and legal landscapes. Also spared from the prosecution’s maw by that novel reading of the U.S. Constitution were Waltine “Walt” Nauta, Trump’s personal valet, and Carlos de Oliveira, Mar-a-Lago’s chief of maintenance.
On Aug. 26, as widely anticipated, Smith filed to overturn the pro-Trump decision issued by Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon. Under circuit rules, Trump has 30 days to respond — which sets the present deadline to respond to Smith on Sept. 25.
On Tuesday, in a 14-page unopposed motion for extension of time to file opening brief, Trump’s attorneys asked the appeals court for another 30 days to get their affairs in order in the Mar-a-Lago case. The motion cites the still-ongoing Smith-helmed prosecution in the District of Columbia as the foremost reason for the requested delay.
Under the terms of the request, Trump, Nauta, and de Oliveira would have until Oct. 25 to respond to the government’s hard-charging 81-page effort to revive the fledgling south Florida case.
The combined extension request argues there is “good cause” for the latest in a long line of delays in the Mar-a-Lago matter.
“President Trump and his counsel are presently engaged in motion practice in a separate case brought by the Special Counsel in the District of Columbia, United States v. Trump, which will require counsel to spend time in a sensitive compartmented information facility (“SCIF”) in Washington, D.C. in the coming weeks to meet that court’s briefing schedule,” the filing reads.
The D.C. case was similarly long-delayed — in a nonsimilar fashion; by a long-and-winding, and largely successful, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on presidential immunity issues. Proceedings in the D.C.-based matter recently began again in earnest.
In an early September order, prosecutors were given until Sept. 26, to file their first brief addressing the new concept of presidential immunity in criminal prosecutions. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, a Barack Obama appointee, gave Trump until Oct. 17, to respond. Then, Smith’s office has until Oct. 29, six days prior to the 2024 general election, to file his reply. A similar suite of deadlines was set by the court over the defense’s appointments clause-related arguments challenging the special counsel’s authority to oversee the case.
But it’s not the D.C. briefing schedule alone that Trump, Nauta and de Oliveira say necessitates a 30-day briefing pause.
There’s also the issue of Trump’s conviction in New York over 34 felony counts of falsifying business documents.
“President Trump and his counsel are also litigating issues of first impression in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that require briefing in advance of a potential sentencing hearing presently set for November 26, 2024,” the filing goes on.
Trump recently tried, and failed, to have the federal court system obtain jurisdiction over the Empire State case. Meanwhile, the judge who oversaw the ex-president’s criminal trial rescheduled a planned Sept. 18, sentencing hearing in light of the upcoming election.
The motion for an extension filed with the 11th Circuit also says Nauta recently hired a new lawyer who “must be familiarized with the facts giving rise to this appeal and has pressing work before this Court and others that makes the existing schedule challenging.”
Smith’s team, for their part, appear unruffled by the former president’s request to delay the Mar-a-Lago case further.
“In light of the procedure described in Eleventh Circuit Rule 31-2(a) and without expressing a view on whether appellees have established good cause, the government does not oppose appellees’ 30-day extension request,” the government wrote in a message provided to the defense and entered into the record by the extension motion.
Under 11th Circuit rules, a statement referencing opposing counsel’s position on an extension of time is mandatory.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
