Jan. 6 hearing: New evidence could emerge after judge's ruling

Defense attorney John Lauro tells Judge Chutkan that special counsel Jack Smith's team is advocating for a "rush to judgment."

Chutkan takes issue with that characterization, noting that the case has already been pending for a year and saying that everyone knows that whatever she rules in this case, it's going to be appealed, which will delay the case again.

"No one here is under any illusion that we are sprinting toward any trial date," Chutkan said.

"There needs to be some forward movement in this case, regardless of when the election is held," she added.

Judge Chutkan has now been pressing defense attorney John Lauro on the Trump team's desire to have Chutkan address a number of pretrial and indictment-related questions -- especially related to Trump's communications with then-VP Mike Pence -- before letting prosecutors file a brief defending the indictment.

Chutkan acknowledged that letting Smith's team file its brief first would be "procedurally irregular," but she said that judges "routinely depart" from court rules.

"It's enormously prejudicial to President Trump. I can't imagine a more unfair protocol," Lauro shot back. "The special counsel proposed a device that turns the criminal rules on its head. There are no special rules for the special counsel."

Lauro said that to let Smith's team files its brief first denies Trump's team the opportunity to address important evidentiary issues.

Chutkan suggested that those issues could be addressed at the same time that they are handling a brief from Smith's team.

"We can all walk and chew gum at the same time," she said.

Lauro then said there is a "major problem" here because, according to Lauro, the Supreme Court already decided that the information in indictment about communication between Trump and Pence is related to an official act.

Chutkan then insisted: "No, I would disagree with you Mr. Lauro, they have not decided that. They have sent that back to me for me to figure that out."

Judge Chutkan asked prosecutor Tom Windom for the timeline that prosecutors would like to have in order to file the brief, which would include multiple exhibits like grand jury transcripts and other evidence central to their case.

Windom says they are currently in the process of writing the extensive defense of their case and would like to file in 2-3 weeks near the end of September -- essentially describing a major defense of their case as a response to the Supreme Court's immunity ruling that would set forth in great detail all the core evidence they would plan to introduce at trial.

While it wouldn't be a so-called "mini-trial" that some legal experts had raised as a possibility, it would put on full display the facts gathered by special counsel Jack Smith in his investigation of Trump that Smith believes are private acts and could still be put before a jury.

Judge Chutkan is presses prosecutor Tom Windom over the prosecution's desire to immediately file a brief defending the superseding indictment "before it's even been challenged by a motion to dismiss. That's not in the ordinary course," Chutkan said.

"I don't think that we are in a typical situation," Windom says.

"We are in a place where the suspect has created new law … and the parties and the courts should be stringent to what find what is the most practical and efficient way forward," the prosecutor says.

Windom says that all of the immunity-related issues raised by the Supreme Court's ruling should be addressed at the same time, and that the schedule Chutkan sets should allow for only one more additional interlocutory appeal by Trump's team.