The Justice Department prosecutors made it clear on Monday that they are not concerned about special counsel Jack Smith’s decision to step down from the Washington, D.C., criminal case against Donald Trump.
In response to an accused Jan. 6 rioter who mentioned it in a recent motion, the prosecutors stated that this move was an “unprecedented circumstance” and should not be expected in cases involving private citizens.
The DOJ prosecutors countered accused Jan. 6 rioter Stephen Baker’s request to continue his case by arguing that the defendant’s reference to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s motion to vacate a briefing schedule in the matter of United States v. Trump is irrelevant.
In the filing, it was stated that the motion pertains to the extraordinary situation where a criminal defendant is anticipated to be certified as President-elect on January 6, 2025, and subsequently inaugurated on January 20, 2025.
However, it is important to note that this case involves a private citizen and does not raise the same need to determine the appropriate course of action in accordance with Department of Justice policy.
Baker, who is accused of participating in the 2020 attack on the U.S. Capitol, is facing charges of trespassing and disorderly conduct. His trial, which was set to begin this week, has been postponed after his legal team submitted a motion on Sunday to request a continuance.
In his argument, Baker’s attorney, William Shipley, focused on how Smith made a “unopposed motion” to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to “vacate the briefing schedule” in the Trump case following his win in the 2024 presidential election.
The motion contended that the Department of Justice has officially declared that the outcome of the November 5 election constitutes an “unprecedented circumstance” warranting a pause in an ongoing criminal prosecution related to the events of January 6, 2021.
The motion further argued that Special Counsel Jack Smith, under the supervision of Attorney General Merrick Garland, has taken this position. In the interest of justice, the motion asserted that the Department of Justice should adopt the same stance in this case.
It proposed that all proceedings be paused in light of the unique circumstances created by the election’s outcome. The parties involved would then respond to the court on how to proceed, if at all, starting from January 20, 2025, which is 70 days from now.
Over the past week, Jan. 6 judges have been bombarded with motions from defendants across the country, all vying to plead their case in light of Trump’s election win.
One alleged rioter from Kansas, named Will Pope, expressed in a motion filed on Friday that the entire American public served as his jury, and they voted for his release. He believes that if there is a jury trial in his case, it should occur after emotions have had time to cool.
The Justice Department also did not accept that excuse. According to prosecutors, there is no need for a continuance in this case. They argue that the defendant’s expectation of a pardon is mere speculation, and therefore, the court should proceed with the prosecution as it would in any other case.
According to reports, Jack Baker, a resident of Texas and a self-proclaimed “citizen journalist,” is currently under investigation for his alleged involvement in the storming of the U.S. Capitol.
It is alleged that Baker forcefully entered the Capitol through a broken door and subsequently joined a group of individuals who made their way into the office of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
As a result, Baker is now facing charges of entering a restricted building as well as charges of disorderly conduct and demonstrating within the Capitol premises.
Baker’s legal team argued in their motion to delay his trial that the request was prompted by the “unique circumstances” of having a president-elect who has vowed to reverse the decisions of the previous administration. They also pointed to Smith’s decision to pause Trump’s criminal case as a contributing factor.
Baker’s motion argued that denying this motion would go against the interests of justice and would likely result in unjust criminal convictions for the defendant. The Justice Department’s official position supports this argument, emphasizing the need to prioritize justice over expediency.
The motion emphasized that Defendant Baker believes it is crucial for the Department of Justice to recognize the voices of the “people” who expressed their opinions on November 5.
It stated, “Before the Government asserts that the ‘people’ have a stake in the administration of justice as reflected in the Speedy Trial Act, Defendant Baker would like to highlight that the ‘people’ the Government claims to represent have already made themselves heard.”
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, who was appointed by Barack Obama, ultimately rejected Baker’s motion in a minute order posted to the federal docket on Monday, siding with the prosecutors. The order suggested that Baker might not have to go through a trial after all.
The court has issued an order for the parties to attend a change-of-plea hearing on November 12, 2024.