The 58-year-old man charged with attempting to assassinate Donald Trump at one of his Florida golf resorts earlier this year has requested a nearly year-long delay in his federal criminal trial. Ryan W. Routh filed a motion on Sunday asking U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon to push the trial date from February 2025 to December 2025, according to court documents.
Routh’s legal team argues that proceeding with the current timeline would violate his constitutional rights, as his defense would lack adequate time to prepare. “Discovery delays and the extraordinary volume of discovery have made the current trial schedule incompatible with Mr. Routh’s due process rights,” Assistant Federal Public Defender Renee M. Sihvola wrote in the 18-page motion. She added that rushing to trial “on charges punishable by life imprisonment” could lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Routh was arrested in September 2024 near the Trump International Golf Club in Florida after a Secret Service agent allegedly saw him armed with a rifle near the 6th hole while Trump was golfing one hole behind. Authorities say the agent fired at Routh, who fled the scene in an SUV. When apprehended, investigators found a letter in Routh’s possession addressed to the “world,” in which he described his actions as “an assassination attempt on Donald Trump” and expressed regret for failing. Officials allege Routh had camped near the course for 12 hours, waiting for Trump to appear.
Routh faces charges including attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, illegal firearm possession, and using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.
The case is being presided over by Judge Aileen Cannon, who previously dismissed a high-profile criminal case against Trump regarding the alleged mishandling of classified documents. Cannon’s involvement has drawn scrutiny, with Routh’s defense arguing that her appointment by Trump, her favorable rulings in his past cases, and Trump’s public praise of her raise doubts about her impartiality.
In October, Routh filed a motion requesting Cannon’s recusal, citing her perceived connections to Trump, including the possibility of a future promotion to the Supreme Court. Routh also questioned whether Cannon’s assignment to his case was truly random.
Cannon rejected the motion, stating there is no legal or factual basis for her recusal. “Defendant cites a series of factors which he believes, when viewed in their totality, create an appearance of partiality,” she wrote. “None warrants recusal, whether examined individually or together.”
Cannon emphasized that her lifetime appointment by Trump does not necessitate recusal, referencing similar rulings in Trump v. Clinton. She noted that she has no personal relationship with Trump and dismissed the claim that
