US District Judge Tanya Chutkan wasted little time taking charge of the historic case by special counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump, using a hearing Friday to make clear she doesn’t want a political carnival.
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan wasted little time taking charge of the historic case by special counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump, using a hearing Friday to make clear she doesn’t want a political carnival.
While much of the roughly 1 hour and 40 minute proceeding focused on the granular details of a protective order for evidence revealed to Trump, Chutkan demonstrated a no-nonsense approach to prosecutors and the former president’s attorneys.
As the presiding judge, Chutkan will play a major role in shaping the proceedings in the lead-up to and during the trial. She will rule on whether prosecutors have overcome the legal standards for the case to go to trial, on what evidence can be presented to a jury and on how quickly the case will actually go to the jury. Scheduling is already shaping up to be particularly contentious issue; in the other Smith prosecution Trump faces – charging him with the mishandling of classified documents – his team tried unsuccessfully to argue the trial should wait until after the 2024 election.
Chutkan, nonetheless, has already cut a contrast with the judge in that Florida-based case, US District Judge Aileen Cannon, in how quickly she’s so far sought to settle disputes between the two sides.
During Friday’s hearing, Chutkan stressed her commitment to “normal order” for the proceedings, while acknowledging the effort it would take to avoid a “carnival atmosphere.”
She repeatedly raised concerns about public statements by Trump that could intimidate witnesses or taint the jury pool. A major throughline of the hearing was her insistence that Trump’s 2024 political campaign could not override the administration of justice in the case.
Here are the key takeaways from Friday’s hearing:
Pointed warnings about witness intimidation
Prosecutors have already raised in court filings public statements Trump has made that they say show the need for strict rules for what he can disclose from discovery. Chutkan made clear that she would be watching for any instances of possible intimidation.
She said that, whether or not Trump’s statements ran afoul of the protective order, she would also be “scrutinizing … very carefully” any public commentary that could have the effect of witness intimidation or obstruction of justice.
