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.
She’s decided to get to the stage with a jury, attach jeopardy, and then immediately dismiss the case on BS grounds. Because jeopardy was attached (the case was tried, even if in a perfunctory and illegitimate manner), then you can’t charge the defendant with the same crime again. This way, she can essentially discharge the crimes permanently.
That does mean she needs to actually get to the trial stage of things. It also means she can use the trial scheduling to keep tripping up the other trials for his crimes in other jurisdictions as she moves her trial dates around to block progress by other judges. She’s actively trying to undermine the judiciary, the rule of law, and protect an enemy of the republic.
Her response is nonsensical unless what you say is the case. She first says, hypothetically if we were to go with either of these both flagrantly incorrect interpretations of this law to say automatically that everything Trump did is legal to make jury instructions for the jury, how would you write them?
Smith replies, hold up, are you saying you’re going with that totally ridiculous law interpretation? These are both very wrong and would mean no matter what the charges get dismissed for Trump, why would we make jury instructions based on them? If this is your interpretation, say so definitively in a ruling, so we can appeal right now before the trial.
She responds, I will not rule on this issue pre-trial (implying hey I might dismiss it the second the trial starts when this is unappealable because it would trigger double jeopardy, lol), and it was just hypothetical who knows, how dare you suggest we finalize jury instructions early this instant! (even though Smith never asked to finalize jury instructions, she was the one who asked them to write hypothetical jury instructions early hinting at her insane interpretations in the first place!) She even called the case a “first impression” which is ridiculous, the law has been around since the 1920’s and has a ton of precedent.
Hopefully Smith has enough to file to just remove her from the case at this point. Yes this delays the trial, and yes the appeals court might say no, but at least it might stop her from deliberately setting her calendar for the trial this Summer to try and delay his other criminal cases too, especially the January 6th case (assuming Supreme court doesn’t give Trump immunity or something equally dumb). She should be impeached and removed from the bench, for being unqualified in the first place, making flagrant dumb mistakes in multiple cases showing her lack of any ability to do this, and actual clear malice in using her position for political ends to boot.
This can just get appealed, right? I mean obviously the clock is on Trump’s side, but a judge can’t just magically wave away crimes on double Jeopardy like this, can they?
If a judge acquits the defendant during a trial before a jury has rendered a verdict, yeah they kind of can de facto wave crimes away if they really want to. Trial judges are important too, not just appeals judges. Another reason why republicans pushing through all of these unqualified judges is so devastating.
https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/judgments-of-acquittal/
She’s hinting that she’s going to make up some totally incorrect interpretation of the presidential records act (made to prevent presidents from taking materials that belong to the government, not shield them from stealing classified records), say under my interpretation no reasonable jury could convict him based on the evidence, and then acquit him before a jury renders any verdict, essentially not appealable to the best of my knowledge as long as it’s done before a verdict, but correct me if I’m wrong. If she dismissed on this basis before the trial it would be appealable, or if she overturned a jury guilty verdict that would be appealable. This ruling she issued just said she would not dismiss the charges on this basis before the trial, but she’s not ruling out going with that interpretation anyway during the actual trial, and her bizarre hypothetical jury instructions order telegraphs this is her intent.
Yup. SCOTUS never really contemplated a completely corrupt judge just jumping on a grenade for her lumpy overlord. Her career under any Democratic president (and possibly several Republican ones) would be over, but she can totally let him off the hook. The circuit has been halfway sensible so far, and Smith needs to accept that he’s fighting two opponents who are not even playing the same game as he is, and he needs to pivot to getting rid of her, however long that takes.
I’m not a specialist, nor lawyer. The discussion I’ve heard so far is that if the judge dismissed the case after the jury is empaneled, but before much (or any) evidence has been presented, then it limits what can be appealed. Appeals can only be done on the case as it was run, not with new evidence, so if she ends it before the prosecution can enter evidence and arguments, then the appeal process might not have much to appeal.
Whether that strategy would actually work to protect the defendant, I don’t know, but it’s currently a scenario being floated by some commentators (who actually are lawyers) watching the case.
She’s daring Smith to appeal. He should oblige her.
He’s brought her malfeasance to the 11th Circuit before, he’ll do it again.
You really don’t get to see the word malfeasance enough, bravo
And I was recently told elsewhere that I should try to “understand people who are objectively smarter than [I am]” and that I have a “lack of empathy and experience.”
At least I have vocabulary in my corner.
Eli5?
He apparently just did on some other decision. This will keep going until the appeals court figures out a way to get it reassigned.
deleted by creator
I’m guessing tossing the whole case out would be just a step too blatant compared to all the other gifts she’s given Trump thus far.
Oh she’ll do that the second the trial starts and double jeopardy would kick in so the prosecutors have no recourse, that’s what she’s telegraphing here. Smith has to just punt and try to get her kicked off the case at this point. She’s made her intentions clear.
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).
deleted by creator
