Judge Reverses His Decision Not to Delay Aug. 7 Trial of 2020 Election Robocallers
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero for Southern New York in Manhattan reversed his own decision not to delay the Aug. 7 jury trial of Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman for their roles in the robocall campaign to suppress Black citizens' mail-in votes in the 2020 election. His order Monday (docket 1:20-cv-08668) directed the parties to confer and submit within five days a list of “agreed-upon proposed trial dates set for the fall.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Frustrations boiled over in the letter that Wohl’s attorney, David Schwartz, sent Marrero five days earlier, urging the judge to “reconsider” his decision to hold firm on the Aug. 7 trial date (see 2306090001). It’s “impossible” for Wohl to appear at the Aug. 7 trial in New York because he will be on trial then on criminal charges in California, said Schwartz. Denying Wohl even a “simple adjournment” of the New York trial until October is “incomprehensible,” Schwartz told the judge. Marrero’s decision Monday to explore fall trial dates followed his “review” of Schwartz’s letter, said his order.
Marrero previously granted summary judgment against Wohl and Burkman on the robocall allegations (see 2303090003). A jury will decide on the scope of relief sought, including damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.
Marrero’s order Monday indicating he's now open to trial dates in the fall prompted Rick Sawyer, special counsel to New York Attorney General Leticia James (D), to immediately write the judge, seeking clarification that he wasn’t also delaying the previously agreed deadlines for pretrial briefing. Five dates populate the current briefing schedule, culminating in a pretrial conference set for Aug. 4 at 10:30 a.m. The plaintiffs are resigned to Marrero’s decision to now hold the trial in the fall, said Sawyer's letter: “We are currently complying with the Court’s order by contacting our clients and witnesses for their fall trial availability.”
James and the other plaintiffs “would be prejudiced by an adjournment" of the briefing schedule dates, Sawyer told Marrero. Adjourning the pretrial filing deadlines will give the defendants “an unfair advantage by allowing them to keep their cards close to their chest,” while the plaintiffs’ cards “are out on the table,” he said. Maintaining the current briefing schedule won’t prejudice the defendants, he said. Unlike the trial date, those deadlines don’t conflict “in any possible way” with Wohl’s “obligations as a criminal defendant in California,” he said.
Sawyer’s letter immediately drew a sharp rebuke from Schwartz on Wohl's behalf, but he appeared in his own letter to Marrero to misconstrue what Sawyer was asking of the judge. The “idea that somehow” the plaintiffs would be prejudiced by Marrero’s decision to delay the trial “is absolutely absurd,” Schwartz told the judge. Sawyer wasn’t asking Marrero to hold firm to the Aug. 7 trial date, only that he not delay the deadlines on the pretrial briefing schedule.
The government, “along with all the private law firms involved with this case and coupled with all of their unlimited resources in their quest for justice over a robocall, cannot possibly be prejudiced by a simple decision to adjourn the case to the fall,” said Schwartz. “We are ready, willing, and able to discuss new trial dates in the fall as ordered by your honor,” he said. There’s “absolutely no prejudice by granting a simple adjournment in order for Mr. Wohl to have the opportunity and right to be present at his own trial,” he said. “We respectfully request that your order stand and that the parties convene to find a date in the fall of 2023.”