During a recent court hearing, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made a significant statement regarding the prosecution of criminal defendants with immunity for certain actions. She emphasized that in an 'ordinary' case, a trial would typically proceed even if the defendant had immunity for specific acts.
Justice Jackson highlighted that as long as there are sufficient allegations in the indictment that involve non-immunized 'private acts,' the case should be allowed to move forward. She explained that in a typical scenario, the presence of some immunized actions would not halt the entire trial process. If there are other allegations that are not protected by immunity, the case would continue as usual.
Michael Dreeben, the special counsel's attorney, supported Justice Jackson's stance by affirming that many of the actions taken by former President Trump in relation to the 2020 election were considered part of his presidential duties. As a result, these actions were not shielded by immunity, even if there was some level of protection granted by the high court.
The discussion during the hearing shed light on the complexities surrounding cases involving immunity for certain acts. It underscored the importance of distinguishing between immunized and non-immunized actions when determining the course of legal proceedings.
Overall, the statements made by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Michael Dreeben provide valuable insights into the legal considerations surrounding criminal cases where immunity is a factor. Their perspectives contribute to a broader understanding of how such cases are approached and adjudicated within the judicial system.
