Trump Immunity Ruling Slows Jan. 6 Case but Opens Door to Airing of Evidence

The Supreme Court’s immunity decision directed the trial court to hold hearings on what portions of the indictment can survive — a possible chance for prosecutors to set out their case in public before Election Day.

Listen to this article · 6:58 min Learn more

  • Share full article

Trump Immunity Ruling Slows Jan. 6 Case but Opens Door to Airing of Evidence | INFBusiness.com

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan will decide whether many of Donald J. Trump’s actions around the 2020 election were based on official acts he took as president or on unofficial acts in his private role as a candidate.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday about executive immunity makes it all but certain that former President Donald J. Trump will not stand trial on charges of seeking to overturn the last election before voters decide whether to send him back to the White House in the next one.

But the ruling also opened the door for prosecutors to detail much of their evidence against Mr. Trump in front of a federal judge — and the public — at an expansive fact-finding hearing, perhaps before Election Day.

It remains unclear when the hearing, which was ordered as part of the court’s decision, might take place or how long it would last.

But it will address the big question that the justices kicked back to the trial court, which is how much of Mr. Trump’s indictment can survive the ruling that former presidents enjoy immunity for official actions they take in office. And it will be held in Federal District Court in Washington in front of the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, who was handling the case before it was frozen more than six months ago as a series of courts considered his immunity claims.

Almost from the moment that Judge Chutkan was assigned the case, she moved it forward expeditiously, showing little patience for Mr. Trump’s efforts to delay it — or his complaints that it was getting in the way of his campaign.

At one point, she told the former president that his “day job” as a candidate would not affect her administration of the case, later declaring, “This trial will not yield to the election cycle.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Source: nytimes.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *