From Cannon’s “ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT TRUMP’S MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT BASED ON PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT”
Separately, to the extent the Special Counsel demands an anticipatory finalization of jury instructions prior to trial, prior to a charge conference, and prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence, the Court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust [see ECF No. 428]. The Court’s Order soliciting preliminary draft instructions on certain counts should not be misconstrued as declaring a final definition on any essential element or asserted defense in this case. Nor should it be interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression. As always, any party remains free to avail itself of whatever appellate options it sees fit to invoke, as permitted by law.
I don’t think double jeopardy comes into play on a dismissal, only an acquittal. A dismissal in effect erases the case from existence.
You’re right, incorrect word. Since it would be after the trial starts it would be an acquittal, not a dismissal. She’ll go with her bizarre interpretation of the law and acquit trump on the basis that no reasonable jury would convict Trump (under her interpretation).