An attorney has said Judge Tanya Chutkan made an important distinction in her Saturday ruling where she shot down Donald Trump‘s motion to dismiss the federal charges against him in the election interference case, in her first ruling since getting the case back off the Supreme Court.
Writing in her blog Civil Discourse, Joyce Vance, a former United States attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, said Chutkan’s reasoning carefully sidestepped one way Trump could have otherwise appealed if convicted.
Trump’s lawyers had filed a motion to dismiss the four charges against him in his federal election interference case, arguing that the charges amount to a “theory [by the prosecutors]…that it is illegal to dispute the outcome of an election and work with others to propose alternate electors.”
Chutkan rejected the motion and wrote that the argument “mischaracterizes his alleged conduct,” which are not related to his political views, but rather allege that he knowingly lied to further a criminal conspiracy.
“The Indictment does not charge defendant for publicly disputing the election outcome and merely ‘working with others’ to propose alternate electors. Indeed, it expressly states: defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means.”
Vance said that this was a critical distinction for Chutkan to make.
“This is important because this part of the indictment is critical to preventing Trump from raising a First Amendment defense on appeal if he’s convicted,” Vance wrote.
“Jack Smith carefully framed the indictment to clarify Trump is not charged with engaging in political speech that is protected by the Constitution, and Judge Chutkan picked up the refrain. It’s the sort of painstaking care good judges take to protect the results in the trial court on appeal.
Vance noted that Trump cannot appeal this decision now and cannot challenge the ruling unless he is convicted.
“So, election in less than 90 days or not, the judge was ready to rock and roll the minute she got jurisdiction back,” she wrote.
The Department of Justice has accused Trump of attempting to overturn President Joe Biden‘s 2020 election victory in events that led to the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, but the former president claims that he is immune from prosecution because he was in office when the alleged event took place.
Trump claimed without evidence that the election was stolen from him due to widespread voter fraud. He has pleaded not guilty to all four felony charges against him and claims the case is politically motivated.
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on July 1, in a 6-3 decision, that former presidents have immunity for official acts conducted while in office, but not for unofficial acts, the judgment was handed back to Chutkan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Chutkan has ordered the defense and prosecution to jointly file a schedule for pretrial proceedings by August 9 and has scheduled a status conference with the lawyers for August 16.
