Legal analysts are curious if the new filing in Donald Trump's 2020 election subversion trial means there could be a kind of "mini-trial" this fall ahead of the main event in the months to come.
The proposals from special counsel Jack Smith and Donald Trump's lawyers, released on Friday, detailed the clashing proposals for proceeding with the case.
Writing for Just Security, Norm Eisen, Matthew Seligman, Danya Perry and Joshua Kolb penned a column explaining Judge Tanya Chutkan's choices in moving forward with Trump v. United States.
Read Also: Why Trump will have to lie a lot to overcome his biggest challenge
At issue is the fact that the United States Supreme Court granted Trump broad immunity for official acts taken during his presidency, which thus will force Judge Chutkan to conduct a "mini-trial" to determine whether the actions described in special counsel Jack Smith's indictment fall within the Supreme Court's new doctrine of presidential immunity.
"We conclude with some thoughts about the implications of all that for Chutkan’s decisions when the parties appear before her to discuss the status report on Thursday, Sept. 5. In our view, it is appropriate to proceed to immediate briefing on whether the superseding indictment meets the tests set out in Trump," the legal experts wrote.
They went on to argue that the "briefing should encompass Smith’s proposal to put forward 'additional unpled categories of evidence that the Government intends to introduce at trial.' Finally, we offer a pre-election briefing schedule that also allows for a reasonably prompt evidentiary hearing — or 'mini-trial' — on immunity, which may focus on the specific allegations that most deserve such an inquiry (e.g., the allegations involving former Vice President Mike Pence)."
While the report maps out a legal plan extensively, the experts cited one piece of Smith's briefing where he writes “the Court can assess the parties’ arguments on that record and conduct any further proceedings it deems necessary to resolve immunity issues.”
The analysts explain that it means Smith could have an evidentiary hearing, essentially a “mini-trial,” which would "hear witness testimony and receive other relevant evidence from both parties, either before or after the election."
“It is conspicuous that the special counsel does not appear to be opposing such a mini-trial, which may be important to Judge Chutkan as prosecutors would likely see tradeoffs with such public hearings," the legal experts also said.
Such a hearing would give the public some glimpse into the proof of Trump's guilt well in advance.
