it s really a audacious request. it s not only the defendant who has a right to a speedy trial, it s also the public that has the right to a speedy trial. the public has an interest and reasonably prompt disposition so a person can either be held accountable or exonerated. there is also an interest in making sure that witness memories do not fade, and that the evidence is still available when the case goes to trial. this argument about the terabytes of documents here is true and not only this case but in other cases as well. no, doubt it will take some time to work through all of this. but no, longer is at the world where you sit down which each page and page through it, the way discovery is refute today s and assorted, searchable, the way you would go about a modern computer search and not the way you would read warn piece of time was written. you know, had tip for the reference, martha. what is so abundantly clear in the sea of all days, the day trump is trying to kick this
the types of threats that we re seeing across through various electronic means. yeah, i would assume that nothing like this has happened before. is that accurate? not at least in my experience, and i think what folks need to realize is that when you use electronic communications across state lines it s not just a local issue for the sheriff to address. that s what brings the federal law enforcement agencies into the play. and so, again, i would assume that sheriff labat is working with all the various law enforcement agencies that can bring resources to bear to be able to protect these residents. can i ask just in terms of the impact that this is going to have on the trial itself, i mean when there s going to be a new jury that has to be seated and the prospect of witness intimidation, what impact do you think this has on pretrial
forth about the proposed schedule the d a fani willis has laid out. jeffrey clark, one of the co-defendants in this indictment, is saying that the arraignment for defendants, the league of september 5th and a trial on march 4th, they are concerned, jeffrey kirk is concerned about the political nature of this case in the steps taken by the state thus far. how much credence do you think the judge is going to give to co-defendants who are calling this all politics? i should, say how likely is it the d.a. willis is going to get anything within the ballpark of march 2024 as far as a trial? two things. first of all, d.a. willis has said, both the night she returned the indictment and throughout the course of her career, that she makes her decisions based on the facts, the evidence she can present at trial, and the law. she does not make decisions based on partisan politics. so i find it interesting that
here will be duplicate information and how much of it will include things trump has always had access to, like, for example, the contents of his own twitter account. moreover, typically it s not just one person doing all that reading. it s why people retain entire legal teams to help them in cases like this. nonetheless, trump and his lawyers argue they ll not be ready to go to trial until april of the year 2026, which is a decidedly different date than the one promised by special counsel jack smith s team. ultimately both of these dates are just suggestions. the trial date in this is the judge s decision and at the hearing last friday the judge presiding over this case made it clear a key deciding factor was going to be how trump conducted himself outside the courtroom.
just one person doing all that reading. it s why people retain entire legal teams to help them in cases like this. nonetheless, trump and his lawyers argue that they will not be ready to go to trial until april of the year 2026. this is a decidedly different date than the one proposed by jack smith s team, which would like a trial date set for january 2nd of the year 2024 which is well before the presidential election. ultimately, both these dates are just suggestions. the trial date in this case is the judge s decision. at a hearing last friday, the judge presiding over this case made it very clear that a key deciding factor here as far as the date was going to be how trump conducted himself outside of the courtroom. this is what she said. quote, even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, if they could reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or prejudice potential jurors can threaten the process. the more a party makes