Cameras are not allowed in the courtroom.
Protective orders and security measures On August 4 and 5, the special counsel filed motions asking the court to restrict Trump from making public statements about the case and to impose a
protective order on Trump and his attorneys to prevent them from revealing evidence (as they noted Trump has done in other cases). In particular, they cited social media posts on August 4 and 5 in which Trump threatened to retaliate against anyone who "comes after" him and called Pence "delusional". The Trump campaign characterized this as political speech that should be allowable. When Chutkan would not grant the Trump team's request for an extra three days to respond, Trump attacked her on social media, demanding that she be removed from the case and that the case be moved out of the District of Columbia. On August 7, Trump's attorneys requested a less restrictive order that would "shield only genuinely sensitive materials from public view", to which prosecutors replied that Trump sought "to try this case in the media rather than in the courtroom". Chutkan scheduled a hearing for August 11. On August 8, Trump insisted he would continue to speak publicly about the case. On August 10, Chutkan was spotted with the protection of
U.S. Marshals, revealing an apparently increased level of security. A Texas woman was charged the next week with leaving Chutkan a
voicemail with racial and gender slurs in which she threatened: "Hey you stupid slave nigger... If Trump doesn't get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly, bitch... You will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it." At the August 11 hearing, Chutkan issued a less broad protective order than what was sought by prosecutors, who wanted to lock down all evidence turned over in discovery. The protective order allowed Trump to access certain non-sensitive information. She admonished Trump's attorneys that inflammatory public remarks by the former president would cause her to take measures to expedite the trial and prevent potential
witness tampering and jury pool tainting. She emphasized that Trump's status as a criminal defendant had priority over his free speech as a political candidate. Chutkan ruled Trump could review materials alone, but only if his attorneys ensured he did not have any device that could copy them. A prosecutor told the court that once the protective order was in place, the special counsel expected to provide the defense about 11.6 million pages or files of materials by the end of August. Court documents released on September 15 showed the special counsel previously asked Judge Chutkan in sealed briefs to impose a "narrowly tailored"
gag order on Trump, asserting that since his indictment he "has spread disparaging and inflammatory public posts on Truth Social on a near-daily basis regarding the citizens of the District of Columbia, the court, prosecutors and prospective witnesses." Smith filed another brief on September 29 regarding more recent derogatory remarks Trump had made about Brad Raffensperger, William Barr, and former
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, all of whom were identified as witnesses in the Trump indictment. Trump had on September 22 suggested that Milley should be
executed for
treason. The brief asserted, "No other criminal defendant would be permitted to issue public statements insinuating that a known witness in his case should be executed. This defendant should not be, either." On October 16, following a hearing, Chutkan granted a limited gag order. The gag order prohibits all parties from making public statements targeting Jack Smith or his staff, the defense counsel or their staff, the judge or court personnel, and any potential witnesses or the substance of witness testimony with smears, intimidation, or harassment. The gag order does not prohibit Trump from making statements criticizing the
Biden administration, the Justice Department, the District of Columbia, other presidential candidates and their political platforms, and the conduct of the trial as being
unfair or politically motivated. and Chutkan issued a
stay of the order on October 20. On October 25, the prosecution filed a reply to the stay order that urged that the gag order be reinstated. On the same day, the
American Civil Liberties Union filed an
amicus brief against the gag order that argued that it violated the 1st Amendment. Chutkan granted the prosecution's request on October 29, stating in her ruling that "First Amendment rights of participants in criminal proceedings ... yield, when necessary, to the orderly administration of justicea principle reflected in Supreme Court precedent", and citing
Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada (1991), that "contrary to Defendant's argument, the right to a fair trial is not his alone, but belongs also to the government and the public." On November 2, Trump's attorneys appealed Chutkan's reinstatement of the gag order, asking the
U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the gag order during the appeal. The next day, the court granted the pause and scheduled a hearing. On November 14, the prosecution's filing urged that the gag order be upheld. At the November 20 hearing, a three-judge panel (with
Brad Garcia,
Patricia Millett, and
Cornelia Pillard presiding) suggested that it might limit the scope of the gag order. It noted Supreme Court precedent suggesting that, in balancing the rights to freedom of speech and a fair trial, protecting the integrity of criminal procedure
outweighs free speech rights. On November 23, the prosecution's filing urged reinstatement of the gag order, citing a document that compiled hundreds of voicemails containing threats and harassment of presiding
New York State Unified Court System Judge
Arthur Engoron in the
New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization; the next day, the defense replied, claiming that the evidence the prosecution cited was
irrelevant. On December 8, the three-judge panel on the appeals court mostly upheld the gag order. The court ruled that Trump cannot speak about prosecutors, court staff or their families. However, Trump may speak about witnesses as long as he doesn't speak specifically about their participation in the court case. He's also free to speak about special counsel Jack Smith, President Joe Biden, and the Justice Department, and he's allowed to say that the charges are "politically motivated". On December 18, Trump asked the court to reconsider its decision; on January 23, the full 11-member court said it would not. (Trump may still appeal to the
U.S. Supreme Court, as previously indicated.)
Other pre-trial motions On September 11, 2023, Trump asked Chutkan to recuse herself accusing her of "prejudging the facts pertinent to the case and his culpability". On September 17, he repeated the request. Chutkan denied the request ten days later. Also on October 5, a consortium of media organizations filed a request with Chutkan to allow
live broadcasting of the trial's proceedings. In an October 10 court filing, prosecutors said that Trump and his legal team had "repeatedly and publicly announced" that they would employ an "advice of counsel" defense, i.e., shifting blame to certain lawyers for advising Trump wrongly. Prosecutors asked Chutkan to order Trump to disclose by December 18 whether he intended to use this defense. This defense would require Trump to reveal communications and evidence related to his current and former attorneys, and he would thereby forfeit his assertions of
attorney-client privilege. Prosecutors noted in the motion that at least 25 witnesses had asserted attorney-client privilege during the course of their investigation. On October 11, Trump's attorneys filed a
motion for discovery based on claims made by U.S. representative
Barry Loudermilk that the House January 6 Committee did not turn over all of its evidence while the committee was under investigation by the
House Administration Oversight Subcommittee. The motion requested
subpoenas be issued to
Bennie Thompson (who chaired the January 6 House committee), Loudermilk, the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee, the
Clerk of the House of Representatives, the
Archivist of the United States, and White House and
Department of Homeland Security attorneys. On October 23, Trump's attorneys filed three motions to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it violates the Freedom of Speech Clause, violates the
Double Jeopardy Clause and the
Due Process Clause of the
5th Amendment (with the former being cited due to Trump's acquittal in
his second impeachment trial), that the indictment fails to state an offense, and that the indictment is a
selective prosecution, as well as a
motion to strike the
allegations related to the January 6 Capitol attack as
prejudicial and inflammatory. On November 3, the prosecution filed a reply to the October 5 media consortium request urging that Chutkan reject it in accordance with Rule 53 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. On November 6, the prosecution filed a reply to the October 23 motions to dismiss arguing that they were without
merit. On November 10, Trump's attorneys filed a reply in support of the October 5 media consortium request, to which the prosecution replied in opposition on November 13. On November 17, Chutkan ruled that the defense had failed to demonstrate that the language in the indictment was prejudicial or inflammatory in rejection of the October 23 motion to strike. On November 27, Chutkan rejected the October 11 motion for discovery filed by Trump's attorneys. On November 28, Trump's attorneys submitted a
motion to compel discovery in two separate filings with 59 separate requests for
evidence from the prosecution related to vote fraud in the election, actual or attempted foreign interference with election infrastructure during the election, political bias in
U.S. Intelligence Community assessments of foreign interference, the existence of any potential undercover government operatives or informants at the January 6 Capitol attack, and communications or coordination between the Justice Department with the Biden administration or
Biden family (including
Hunter Biden). On December 27, the special counsel asked the court to prohibit Trump from presenting "irrelevant disinformation", such as Trump's accusations that the mayor of Washington, D.C., the National Guard, and the Capitol Police failed to prevent the attack. Smith argued: "A bank robber cannot defend himself by blaming the bank's security guard for failing to stop him." On October 16, 2024, the special counsel argued in a court filing that the case should not be dismissed. Trump had argued that it should be dismissed. The Supreme Court had ruled earlier that year that
charges in January 6 cases for obstruction can be brought for presenting fake documents in the Electoral College certification proceeding (as Trump had indeed been charged), though not for rioting.
Immunity dispute Appeals On October 5, 2023, Trump's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, cited
presidential immunity under
Nixon v. Fitzgerald. On December 1, 2023, Chutkan rejected the October 5 motion to dismiss under presidential immunity and the October 23 motion to dismiss under the Freedom of Speech Clause, the Double Jeopardy Clause, and the Due Process Clause. On December 7, 2023, Trump filed notice that he planned to appeal Chutkan's ruling. On December 13, 2023, Chutkan paused all deadlines in the case, including the upcoming trial itself, so the immunity dispute could be resolved first. The gag order remained in effect. After Chutkan stayed the case, prosecutors provided public notice that they would file discovery material, although they no longer had an immediate deadline to do so. On January 4, 2024, Trump's team asked Chutkan to reject these filings and hold prosecutors in contempt. Prosecutors replied the next day saying that Trump hadn't been burdened by "the mere receipt" of documents ahead of deadline, especially as he had no deadline to reply to it. In response to a hypothetical question posed by Judge Pan about whether a U.S. president could order
SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, Sauer argued that unless the president were subsequently impeached and convicted for said unlawful order, the president could not be criminally prosecuted. On February 6, 2024, the Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously affirmed the District Court ruling, concluding that Trump's alleged actions "lacked any lawful discretionary authority ... and he is answerable in court for his conduct" because "former President Trump has become citizen Trump ... [and] any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution." The panel held further that former Presidents have no immunity for "allegedly violat[ing] generally applicable criminal laws" while in office, and specifically "to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive powerthe recognition and implementation of election results". The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 25. On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that, regarding a president's behavior during their presidency, former presidents have "some immunity from criminal prosecution" for their "official acts" but have "no immunity" for their "unofficial acts". specifically to determine whether each act was official or private conduct; whether or not the official acts are part of core constitutional duties; and whether prosecuting the non-core official acts would have any "dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive." Under Supreme Court rules, the prosecutors were given one month to ask the justices to reconsider their ruling, with the case returning to Chutkan on August 2, 2024. Smith could have petitioned to shorten this period, but chose not to. After the case was returned to Chutkan following resolution of his immunity argument, she asked all parties to propose schedules for further pretrial proceedings by August 9, 2024, and she set an August 16 hearing to determine how to proceed with the case. She also denied an October motion by Trump to dismiss the case on statutory grounds. The special counsel requested a deadline extension to August 30; Trump did not object. (Both parties went on to meet this deadline.) The hearing for which the report was needed was postponed to September 5. The special counsel filed a superseding indictment on August 27, 2024. It omitted mention of some of Trump's alleged activities, including his attempts to involve the Justice Department in his claims of election fraud, as such "official acts" can no longer be used as evidence following the Supreme Court's decision on immunity. Nonetheless, the four original charges were not dropped. The superseding indictment had been presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in the case. On September 5, Judge Chutkan held the first hearing in the case since the immunity decision. The purpose of the hearing was to decide whether the trial can proceed, to begin to set a trial schedule, and to decide whether prosecutors can call Pence and others as witnesses. She set a September 26 deadline for the prosecution to file its initial brief that would include previously unseen evidence such as grand jury transcripts; Trump attorneys had sought to delay the filing until after the November election. He filed a 165-page brief under seal. Trump asked for more redactions. She also planned to release the prosecution's redacted exhibits related to the brief, but on October 10, she gave Trump one week to appeal the release. He did not appeal, and the redacted exhibits were released. The first section of Smith's brief summarizes evidence and describes the prosecutors' argument; the second discusses what constitutes an "official" act; the third applies the principles to Trump's case; the fourth urges Chutkan to rule that Trump does not have immunity for these actions and that he be brought to trial. == Dismissal and report proceedings ==