All signs indicate Jack Smith has decided to move his case against Donald Trump to Miami, signaling that the special counsel believes Washington D.C. presents “insurmountable” challenges in adjudicating his classified documents case, The Washington Post reports.
Devlin Barrett, Spencer S. Hsu, Jacqueline Alemany, Perry Stein and Josh Dawsey write that, “The switch comes amid clear signs that the investigation is nearly completed and that Trump could face criminal charges. Former prosecutors said it reflects an effort by the Justice Department to prevent Trump’s lawyers from challenging an indictment by saying it had been filed in the wrong place — a legal line of attack that could delay or even derail a trial.”
The decision on where to file potential charges against Trump is consequential, according to the report, which notes that any courthouse where such a case would be held would be at the center of “intense public interest and security concerns,” the report said.
Moving the potential case against the former president to Florida would also avoid a likely lengthy legal argument, the report said.
From Trump’s standpoint, Florida would be a more favorable venue to hold a potential trial, the report said, noting that just 5 percent of D.C. voters backed Trump in 2020, compared to 45 percent in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties who backed him in the most recent presidential election.
Barrett, Hsu, Alemany, Stein and Dawsey write that “conservatives and defense lawyers have argued that the spate of trials stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot have shown that District residents tend to take a harsh view of Trump and his supporters, and he might find a more sympathetic jury in Florida.”
Moving the case from Washington to Florida has surprised some legal experts, considering much of what is known about the case has centered around the nation’s capital, but the report suggests facts about the case that haven’t yet been made public may have factored in the decision.
“You don’t know all of the facts that would determine venue until you’re further advanced in an investigation,” former federal prosecutor Van Grack told The Post.
“As far as why now, it’s a sign they have largely completed their investigation, and they’re able to make determinations like venue in a way they weren’t able to eight or 10 months ago.”
Grack added that “A decision to switch grand juries “would indicate they thought [the challenges in D.C.] were insurmountable.”
The Constitution and many U.S. court rulings have long held that when possible, trials should be held near the scene of an alleged crime.
Barrett, Hsu, Alemany, Stein and Dawsey write that “A major guidepost for Washington cases is a 1971 appellate court decision involving a rape and subsequent shooting. In that case, a man named John Swann was accused of raping a woman in Washington. After the charges were filed, he went to her workplace in Maryland and shot her. Initially, Swann was charged in D.C. for the shooting, on the basis that he was trying to attack a witness in his rape case. But higher courts later held that he had to be charged with the shooting in Maryland, even if the crime was done to target a witness in his case in the nation’s capital.”
