CNN reports that today included a contentious hearing in the courtroom of Judge Dredd Aileen Cannon that included a shouting match between attorneys and the Judge wondering if the charges were too confusing for jurors to understand.
To her credit, at least, Cannon did not rule on a motion by the defendants to dismiss all charges based on the claim that the indictments were flawed.
In other events in the hearing today, Walt Nauta is whining that Jack Smith vindictively brought charges against him, while Nauta’s lawyer, Stanley Woodward, claims that prosecution attempted to force him to convince Nauta to cooperate by threatening a possible judge appointment Woodward was being considered for.
Prosecutor Harbach called Woodward’s claim a “garbage argument” and “a fantasy” and that such a thing did not happen.
Harbach also said that this is the first time Woodward has made this claim even though the meeting took place months ago and his story of what happened in the meeting has changed repeatedly.
Judge Cannon’s reaction was to tell Harbach to “calm down” and asked why there was no evidence of what occurred during the meeting. Harback replied that there was no recording made of the meeting but the prosecution had preserved what records there were that applied to the meeting.
During the afternoon, the defense argued that the indictments were confusing because the wording of many of the charges are too similar.
Prosecutor Jay Bratt said the charges reference different parts of the obstruction statute used to charge Trump and two of his employees. Bratt also pointed out that jurors would be given clear instructions about the charges during a trial.
Cannon said that while “it’s going to be hard for someone to detect what’s different in these counts,” she noted “that will be a project” down the road. Cannon has not yet set a trial date in the case after indefinitely postponing it in an order earlier this month.
The Florida judge spent hours Wednesday entertaining theories from defense attorneys about what they say were problems in the investigation and prosecution of the former president, Nauta and the third co-defendant, Carlos De Oliveira. The defense theories ranged from allegations that prosecutors tried to extort Nauta’s attorney to claims prosecutors used inappropriate and “attention-grabbing” descriptions of Mar-a-Lago in the indictment.
Cannon ultimately suggested that the “potpourri of criticisms” from the three defense teams may be best suited for a jury to decide at an eventual trial.
When will that “eventual trial” be? Who knows? 2027? Cannon’s last trial before retirement? Only the voices in Cannon’s head know for sure.