Based on Judge Canon's grossly prior aberrant rulings regarding this case, why couldn't

[JohnSJ]

Counsel Jack Smith appeal for a new trial judge on those grounds?

[mobeau69]

1. He could. IMO he should.

[JohnSJ]

3. Really? Then what does he have to lose by doing it?

[mobeau69]

8. Accused of judge shopping by magats maybe? Slow the process down?

Personally, I wouldn’t take a chance with her. Holder questioned her acumen for such an unprecedented case.

[onenote]

11. No prosecutor ever wants to start a case by losing the first motion they file.

[honest.abe]

2. Perhaps he will at some point.

Maybe give a chance to recuse herself first.

[former9thward]

4. Because that motion is not allowed in the federal court system.

And Judge Cannon has not made any rulings on the matters before the court now. Also all previous predictions that the judge would be criticized by the appeals court when her ruling was overturned never happened.

[Effete Snob]

7. +1

The DU Code Of Civil Procedure is only surpassed by the criminal one in its ability to amaze.

[sheshe2]

5. BRDS just posted this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143087263

Magistrate to preside over Trump's arraignment, not controversial Judge Aileen Cannon

[Effete Snob]

9. That's normal

That doesn't have anything to do with Judge Cannon being assigned to the case.

Magistrates are THERE to deal with evidentiary and other routine issues.

It's an arraignment. There is literally next to nothing to actually DO other than to list the charges and take a plea.

[onenote]

10. He won't because he would lose. And starting the case by losing the first motion is a bad idea.

If issuing a wrong ruling favoring a party was all that is was needed to establish bias in favor of that party, then no judge that has a ruling reversed would ever be allowed to handle the case on remand. Of course, that's not how it works and even Cannon had the case sent back to her to implement the 11th Circuit's decision.

To repeat once again what the courts have said about the application of the recusal rule:

Under 18 USC 455 (the recusal statute ), recusal "generally must involve apparent bias deriving from an extrajudicial source, meaning something above and beyond judicial rulings or opinions formed in presiding over the case." United States v. Bergrin, 682 F.3d 261, 282 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 674 (2012). And while the Supreme Court noted in Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551 (1994) that "It is wrong in theory, though it may not be too far off the mark as a practical matter, to suggest, as many opinions have, that 'extrajudicial source' is the only basis for establishing disqualifying bias or prejudice," the Court went on to state that when a party does not cite to extrajudicial sources, the Judge's opinions and remarks must reveal a "deep-seated" or "high degree" of "favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." Id. at 555-56 and that "Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion . . . [They] can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is involved. Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal." Id at 555.

The only cases I know of where a judge was disqualified solely on the basis of their rulings are cases where the judge repeatedly ignored orders of the Court of Appeals and continued to misapply the law. Not the situation here.

[Effete Snob]

12. Good luck

[onenote]

13. Don't know what you mean

[Effete Snob]

14. The "OMG Judge Cannon" fever is a tough one

I’m more enthused to see if he drags her down with him.

[onenote]

16. So you think Smith will try to get her recused?

By the way, I disagree with the poster that suggested that Smith isn't allowed to file a motion for her recusal. Of course he can file it. He can file just about any motion he can think of. But he won't file that one, not because he can't but because he has no interest in wasting time on a motion he will lose.

[Effete Snob]

20. No

Of course not. There is no ground for recusal whatsoever. The 11th Circuit didn’t remove her from the case previously, and they aren’t going to do so pre-emptively.

But you’re pissing against the wind.

[onenote]

22. I get it now. You and I are in agreement.

Thanks.

[Marius25]

24. Glenn Kirschner is on TV right now saying he's very worried about her

This is the only place I've seen people not be worried about her destroying this case. Every prosecutor and legal expert is worried.

[Effete Snob]

25. You mean...

…people who are paid to appear on TV shows to drive interest have dramatic opinions?

A guest who says that (a) there is no basis for recusal and (b) if she screws up the 11th Circuit will definitely fix her wagon, is going to get invited back to do what?

[Marius25]

26. There is no basis for recusal and the 11th Circuit can't fix a directed verdict

[Effete Snob]

27. Have you even read FRCrimP Rule 29?

Because it doesn’t sound like it.

Aside from which, there’s a lot of motion practice that is going to happen long before the close of evidence at trial.

[mobeau69]

15. Thanks. So it is possible. Unlikely but possible.

[ForgedCrank]

21. Seems to

me that asking for a new judge on the grounds that this one doesn't historically rule in ways you agree with would be a bad idea in general. I don't know the legal path regarding this stuff, but it just sounds like a wrong move.

[LiberalFighter]

17. We will have to wait and see.

If Cannon was smart she would recuse herself without Smith making the request.

I'm figuring if Cannon doesn't Smith will make the request.

[TexasDem69]

18. What are the grounds for recusal?

[LiberalFighter]

19. That is for Smith to figure out.

[onenote]

23. And if he doesn't seek to have her disqualified,

will you accept his judgment?

[LiberalFighter]

28. I'm assuming he knows best how to handle it.

I think too many of us are getting ahead of it.

Personally, I think more pressure needs to be put on the judge to recuse herself.