What’s next in the Trump Georgia case? It depends on Mark Meadows.

The first major hearing in the case over former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 Georgia election is taking place Monday — and its outcome could influence how Trump’s trial ultimately unfolds.

The hearing will address whether one of the defendants, Trump’s former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, should be tried in federal court rather than state court. Meadows, one of the 19 defendants in the case, has argued that the case must be tried in federal court because it is protected by the U.S. Constitution’s primacy clause, which protects federal officials from federal prosecution for acts they do in the exercise of their have committed duties. Federal courts, not state courts, have jurisdiction over constitutional issues.

He argues that he acted in his official capacity in helping coordinate legal strategy and false theories about voter fraud between Trump and state election officials. Although Meadows did not provide any other reason for delaying his trial, it’s possible his team believes a federal jury would be more sympathetic to his case than one in Fulton County, where elections tend to favor Democrats. In a federal trial, the jury would likely be drawn from a broader constituency of the state.

However, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis wants the case remanded to state court. The danger of moving the case to federal court is that Willis could be forced to prosecute each defendant individually and for a longer than ideal period of time, rather than in one large case. She’s already encountered difficulties in that regard, as Kenneth Chesebro, a former member of Trump’s legal team who pushed a plan to install fake voters in Georgia, received an expedited trial scheduled for late October ahead of all other defendants as the case goes to trial .

Other defendants’ trials may be broken off; Georgia Republicans David Shafer and Shawn Still, who were involved in Trump’s plan to use fake voters in Georgia, have also requested that the cases against them be moved to a federal court, saying they are acting on orders from Trump and his proxies acted were agents of the federal government. And that “plays right into Trump’s hands,” said Randy Zelin, a law professor at Cornell University.

“What’s going to happen is those cases will be separated, which is Trump’s dream scenario: delay, stall, let others do it first,” he said. “Trump sits back and says, ‘I want to see two trials, three trials, four trials.’ I have all these opportunities now to take the evidence and testimony and prepare my defense.” It’s every criminal defense attorney’s dream.”

Will Meadows succeed?

The problem for Meadows is that he has made an admission that could both derail his efforts to bring the case to federal court and give prosecutors a weapon to use against him, Regardless of where his trial takes place, Meadows’ attorneys said in their briefs that all allegations against him in the indictment “undoubtedly involve political activities.”

“The moment he said he shot himself, if not in the foot then maybe in the upper shoulder near his heart,” Zelin said.

Because that sentence appears to be an admission that he was acting on behalf of the Trump campaign and not on behalf of the White House. That would indicate that he was not covered by the supremacy clause, since participating in campaign work is not part of the duties of a White House chief of staff. And that gives prosecutors a chance to argue that there is therefore no reason to move the case to federal court.

In the filing last week, they wrote that Trump’s campaign duties are “by definition outside the lawful scope of his authority as chief of staff.” In addition, prosecutors allege that Meadows violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal officials from engaging in partisan political activities while on duty. He may have to face additional liability in federal court, but when it comes to the state-level criminal charges against him, it’s likely that prosecutors can pursue them in state court.

“I would be a little surprised if any federal judge agreed to take this case,” Zelin said.

The chaotic law enforcement is imminent

But even if Meadows fails to ensure he faces federal court, some of his co-defendants could do so, possibly including Trump. And that could split the case in a way that hurts prosecutors.

Willis’ charges in this case are based on the state of Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. To gain a conviction, she must prove Trump was the leader of a criminal enterprise involving lawyers, associates and local officials who allegedly worked with the former president to falsify the 2020 Georgia election results. This is much easier when all the accused are tried in the same court.

Should the case be dismissed, it will likely mean Trump will be tried after at least some other defendants, Zelin said, particularly those who, like Chesebro, called for an expedited trial. He would then have the benefit of knowing the legal arguments that the Georgian prosecutors will bring against him, could find ways to hold the Georgian witnesses accountable for discrepancies in their testimonies in the different cases, and could see how juries on different Defenses Respond.

Additionally, moving some cases — his in particular — to federal court has another key benefit for Trump: the lack of cameras. While Willis has signaled that she wants cameras in court in Georgia, the federal court case will not be broadcast live.

“Trump doesn’t want the cameras on him as he sits humbly in the defendant’s chair while the prosecutor speaks to the jury, provides them with facts and the judge sits on the bench above him and calls the shots,” said Cheryl Bader. Professor at the Fordham School of Law. “He’d rather have the cameras rolling outside the courtroom where he can control the ‘spin.'”

Aside from those benefits for Trump, however, Willis will still be able to present the same legal arguments she would in a Georgia court, and the difference in jury pools isn’t huge, said John C. Coffee, a professor at the Columbia Law School. Additionally, given the size of the case and the fact that federal charges against Trump for his involvement in the January 6, 2021 riot, will likely take precedence, a lengthy prosecution was always likely in this case. On Monday, the judge set a hearing date for March 2024 in this case.

“With 19 defendants, each with an attorney who wishes to cross-examine each witness, this RICO case could take up to a year from inception to trial,” Coffee said. “A drama begins with a clear climax, centered on the trial in Washington in March.”

Will you support Vox explanatory journalism?

Most news agencies make their money from advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to achieve at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on advertising and subscriptions to keep operations running. First, ad spend fluctuates with the economy, making it difficult to plan ahead. Second, we are not in the subscription business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world – not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. It is important that we have multiple ways to make money. That’s why we also seek the support of our readers, even though advertising is still our biggest source of income. If you agree that everyone deserves access to trusted, quality information, would you give Vox a gift today? Any amount helps.