The racketeering trial in Georgia against Donald Trump and 18 other defendants will be as legally complex as it is politically charged. As an illustration, we can look at Wednesday’s hearing on whether two of the defendants should be allowed to separate their cases from the rest.

Attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell were the defendants for Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, each arguing that they should be able to proceed separately from Trump and the other defendants. The thrust of their arguments was that the sprawling case involves voluminous evidence virtually unrelated to them, but would unfairly taint the jury’s impressions.

But as McAfee soon realized, Chesebro and Powell were making less of a compelling case for separate trials than they were in violation of the state’s racketeering law.

It’s true that large parts of the case don’t really concern Chesebro or Powell. But that is due to the fact that they were charged together under a law that effectively imposes legal consequences on each for the actions of the others. In other words, the possibility of being convicted of the co-defendants’ bad behavior is inherent in the charge.

Chesebro’s proposal for a fall trial under Georgia’s strict demands for a speedy trial was a clever way to advance his plea for separation, given the logistical challenges associated with bringing the entire group to justice so quickly. He clearly regretted being partially foiled when Powell made the same argument.

Clearly, Chesebro would rather sit alone at the defense table than be associated with Powell, an unashamed conspiracy theorist who, according to his lawyer, engaged in provocative and racist behavior. Chesebro’s counsel argued that Powell’s presence would create bias against his client, saying, “I don’t know if there’s any legal theory out there that claims this, but it’s just the reality.”

But that’s where it’s headed, McAfee made it clear. There is no escaping a demand for a speedy trial, which under Georgia law requires the jury to be selected and proceedings to begin on November 3. Failing that, the suspects are automatically acquitted.

The secondary headline of the hearing was that the prosecution estimates it will be four months before the case is presented. Add to that the defense and jury selection, and we were looking at half a year, which, of course, also given the elections in November

So

aided by a very important political calendar.

The question is whether the trial will occupy some or all of the defendants for much of 2024, including the former and future president. McAfee applied the three-part test for dismissal under Georgia law, which says cases can be segregated if 1) there is a danger that evidence admissible against one defendant will be mistakenly considered against another defendant; 2) the number of defendants would create confusion about the law and evidence to be applied to each of them; or 3) the defense cases are so hostile to each other that it becomes impractical for the jurors to reach a verdict.

The parties agreed that the last factor does not apply, and McAfee found that neither do the other two. All evidence in the racketeering case is admissible against both suspects, and the same law applies, so there is no risk of confusion. Again, as unfair as that may seem to Chesebro and Powell, that’s part and parcel of an extortion charge.

However, that leaves the even bigger question of what happens to the other seventeen defendants, including Trump. Here McAfee, who showed poise and preparation during the first televised hearing, is faced with a tricky problem that calls for judicial finesse. Because Georgia law does not actually require the dismissal of any of the cases, the default position advocated by the prosecution is that once one or more defendants appear in court, the others will follow unless they present their own valid reasons for the dismissal. And Trump’s argument that he won’t have enough time to prepare his defense doesn’t really cut it unless Georgia’s speedy trial law is unconstitutional.

But it would be a disaster if all nineteen defendants were brought before an early trial because of their objections. That’s why McAfee explained that his discretion isn’t limited to the law’s three-part test.

The judge also made a subtle point about the interplay between the dismissal requests and other defendants’ requests for the case to be referred to federal court. If the federal court denies the removal and then reverses it on appeal, it would almost certainly be after the state court trial began. And then what?

McAfee gave Dist Atty. Fani Willis gives him one last chance to convince him with another round of instructions that the defendants should all go to trial together. But he telegraphed quite clearly that he’s headed for at least two trials: an early trial for the defendants who have invoked their right to a speedy trial, and another for the rest, or at least those who are in remain in state court after the federal removal requests are filed. decided.

That has important implications for the pressing national question of Trump’s 2024 candidacy. First, if Chesebro and whoever supports him are finally acquitted in an early trial, which is less likely than an acquittal of the former president, it will be the reinforce Trump’s claim that the allegations amount to a political witch hunt. Second, delaying Trump’s trial for at least the six months devoted to the expedited trial will dramatically reduce the likelihood of his case going ahead before the election.

In that sense, Wednesday’s hearing was only a foreshadowing of things to come. In the tumultuous year ahead, many more such normally minor legal issues will have potentially huge implications for national politics and, therefore, for the future of our democracy.

Harry Litman is the host of the

Talking Feds Podcast

.

@harrylitman