Judge in Trump Documents Case Has Scant Criminal Trial Experience

[Nevilledog]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/us/politics/aileen-cannon-judge-trump-documents.html

No paywall
https://archive.is/tau2s


Aileen M. Cannon, the Federal District Court judge assigned to preside over former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case, has scant experience running criminal trials, calling into question her readiness to handle what is likely to be an extraordinarily complex and high-profile courtroom clash.

Judge Cannon, 42, has been on the bench since November 2020, when Mr. Trump gave her a lifetime appointment shortly after he lost re-election. She had not previously served as any kind of judge, and because about 98 percent of federal criminal cases are resolved with plea deals, she has had only a limited opportunity to learn how to preside over a trial.

A Bloomberg Law database lists 224 criminal cases that have been assigned to her, and a New York Times review of those cases identified four that went to trial. Each was a relatively routine matter, like a felon who was charged with illegally possessing a gun. In all, the four cases added up to 14 trial days.

Judge Cannon’s suitability to handle such a high-stakes and high-profile case has already attracted scrutiny amid widespread perceptions that she demonstrated bias in the former president’s favor last year, when she oversaw a long-shot lawsuit filed by Mr. Trump challenging the F.B.I.’s court-approved search of his Florida home and club, Mar-a-Lago.

*snip*


She's not qualified.

[TomDaisy]

1. she's a fake judge. She's a real Federalist Society political operative.

[2naSalit]

32. That is the truth of it. ...nt

[dalton99a]

2. So the most important case goes to the worst and least qualified judge

Because of “random chance” and there is nothing anyone can do about it

Great system

[raging moderate]

4. And it's the second time this "random system" picked her for a Trump trial.

My, my. What a strange coincidence!

[brush]

11. Very suspicious if you ask me.

[2naSalit]

33. First time was not random...

His lawyers shopped around for her.

[Magoo48]

13. One could argue that the fix is in.

[TheRickles]

29. Any idea how she was actually chosen - coin flip, ouija board, computer, etc.? A serious question.

A lot's at stake, and it would be nice to know how random it really was.

[ShazzieB]

31. Good question!

Maybe somebody drew her name out of a hat, who knows! We need some transparency on this.

[LiberalFighter]

3. There should be a seniority requirement.

[kentuck]

5. She should recuse herself now...

To save herself the future embarrassment.

[BOSSHOG]

12. It's the ole catch 22

If she had integrity she would recuse herself.

[Locrian]

34. or consequences / penalties

or if there were consequences / penalties
As is it will probably make her career as someone who can be know to do whatever shes told
And the $$ that come with that

[kentuck]

38. Supreme Court nomination...

Do a favor, like Bork, and get nominated. Then, get shot down.

[Hekate]

6. Coincidence takes a lot of planning...

Malcolm Nance's Law of Intelligence Kismet:
‘Coincidence takes a lot of planning.'

[dalton99a]

7. It is a very beautiful coincidence

[Hekate]

8. A beautiful day in the neighborhood ...

[C_U_L8R]

9. And probably zero security clearance

How is she supposed to judge over highly classified evidence??

[Nevilledog]

10. They don't need clearance, it's inherent to the position as judge.

Just like the totally compromised GOP MoC don't have to pass a background check, but have clearance.

[Wednesdays]

14. Trial Of The Century, and we get a rookie judge.

And that's the BEST that can be said about her.

[Native]

15. We don't have to worry about Aileen. Here's why:

A Sigh of Relief Regarding Judge Cannon

Joyce Vance just gave us all a reason to breathe a HUGE sigh of relief. Last week, when we learned the trump case had been assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon, I argued that Jack Smith had considered all the possible outcomes, including having Cannon preside over the prosecution.

Today, we found out WHY Jack Smith seems unworried. Because this case includes national defense information as defined by the Espionage Act, it will be governed by the rules of the Confidential Information Production Act, or CIPA.

Joyce just told god and everybody that there's a provision in CIPA that allows for an IMMEDIATE right of EXPEDITED APPEAL. So what does that mean?

It means that if Judge Cannon makes a ridiculous ruling that DoJ wants to appeal, SHE does NOT get to set the briefing schedule. The DoJ can appeal IMMEDIATELY to the 11th circuit - the same circuit that vacated TWO of Cannon's rulings in the Special Master case.

More here:

Link to tweet

?t=U85O9QHlINsi1dmOpl1jyQ&s=19

[ancianita]

22. +1000

Thank you!

[Native]

23. My pleasure. I'm looking forward to the podcast this weekend.

[ancianita]

24. Cool. But here's the thing.

With Cannon gone, there are still only two available District judges in her Palm Beach venue jurisdiction for the 11th Circuit to choose from.

Either would likely be better than her, but that fact should be pointed out.

[onenote]

36. Mueller She Wrote reads more into Vance's discussion of CIPA than it merits

Vance is right that there is right of interlocutory appeal under CIPA. But Mueller She Wrote overstates the significance in that right. As Vance acknowledges, CIPA allows an interlocutory appeal with respect to a narrow category of rulings relating to whether the government has to provide the defense with unredacted copies of confidential, classified documents. Such disputes don't always arise and, keep in mind, the government didn't raise a CIPA-related objection to Trump's attorneys getting access to the classified documents seized from Mar-a-Lago in the search warrant/Special Master related case. It's far from clear at this point whether there will be a CIPA-related dispute between Trump's attorneys and the DOJ that would require Cannon to make a ruling.

Most importantly, CIPA would not come into play, and would not create a right of an immediate appeal, with respect to any other actions taken by Cannon before or after the trial, such as scheduling orders and orders on the admissibility of evidence, such as Corcoran's statements.

So any suggestion that CIPA means there's nothing to worry about is wildly misplaced.

[republianmushroom]

16. 28 months and counting

[CousinIT]

17. 'Random', my ass. She will let him off scot-free.

That's my prediction, if she is allowed to remain the judge for this case. She is unqualified, stupid, and a Trump-rump-kisser. If "pick the most unqualified, biased judge in America for this case" were the objective, she'd be it.

[aggiesal]

18. She's not qualified. ...

(R)'s don't care.

[lastlib]

27. They not only don't care, they WANT it that way.....

When they can't dazzle her with brilliance, they can baffle her with bullshit. Look for it.

[CaptainTruth]

19. Jack Smith has the right to request a different judge.

If he does I fully expect the 11th Circuit to grant his request. The Circuit does not want the shadow of possible judicial bias over this case.

[onenote]

20. He has the right to move for her recusal under the law. Which will be denied under the law.

Which is why it would be an enormous surprise if he even bothers to seek her recusal.

He doesn't have the right to request a different judge without meeting the statutory recusal standards. As interpreted and applied by the courts, those standards would not require her recusal:

The fact that a judge applies the law erroneously, even egregiously, is not in and of itself evidence of bias that would require the judge to recuse or result in the appeals court forcing the recusal.

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.

[CaptainTruth]

35. Experts can & do disagree on important matters.

To be clear, I'm NOT an expert in this area. I made my statement based on what others have said.

For example, Joyce Alene Vance on June 9:

1/Before everyone gets too spun up about reports Judge Cannon has been assigned to the Trump case, a little law. I used to be an appellate chief in the 11th Circuit (where Florida is) and I litigated a few appeals where we asked the court of appeals to order a judge to recuse.

2/Altho a judge's behavior in court generally doesn't form the basis for recusal, the 11th Circuit has ordered "reassignment" where a judge leans so heavily for a defendant they call their objectivity in the eyes of the public into question. This is from US v. Martin
[image which includes]
IV. REASSIGNMENT
Finally, based on our review of the record and the elements that this Court considers in determining whether to reassign a case to a different judge where there is no indication of actual bias, see United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam), we have determined it wiser to remand this case with instructions to reassign it to a different judge.
[followed by case-specific comments which don't apply in Trump's case, which I understand may decrease the relevance of this example]

3/This is persuasive authority that Judge Cannon must step aside if the case falls to her as a permanent assignment. Her court & certainly the 11th won't tolerate the damage it would do to their credibility if she failed to voluntarily recuse.


Joyce Alene Vance on June 12/13:

1/ CIPA [Classified Information Procedures Act] is a federal law that directs how a trial judge should handle issues involving potential exposure of classified material in criminal trials. As you might expect, it's complicated.
[image that briefly explains CIPA]

2/ Today in my newsletter, I explain how CIPA works & how provisions authorizing an immediate appeal of adverse decisions may let prosecutors challenge Judge Cannon's decision to remain on the case, without incurring additional delay.

[different thread]

4/If Judge Cannon runs afoul of CIPA, prosecutors will appeal her to the 11th Circuit. If she continues to put her thumbs on the scales of justice for the former president, she could be reversed, the circuit court could direct that the case be reassigned to another judge.

5/Because the gov't will have to appeal any egregious mistakes the judge makes on CIPA matters, it's a prime opportunity to request reassignment without injecting any additional delay into the case.


And Norm Eisen on June 12:

Judge Cannon’s name may be familiar to many

She heard Trump’s challenge to the DOJ search & unlawfully barred them from using the records in their investigation

Her outrageous decisions were reversed as violations of “clear” law by an ultra-conservative 3-judge panel (2/x)

Under 28 USC 455(a) a judge shall disqualify themselves if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Judge Cannon’s situation clearly fits that test

She is obligated to recuse herself & if she doesn’t the 11th circuit will likely reassign sooner or later (3/x)
[image which includes]
28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
[end of image]

28 USC 455 does not require a showing of actual bias

It simply asks whether “an objective observer” would question the judge’s impartiality

How could any objective observer not question it after those lawless rulings favoring Trump as we explain (4/x)

[Link to article titled Aileen Cannon’s Previous Rulings About Trump Demand Her Recusal
BY NORMAN L. EISEN, RICHARD W. PAINTER, AND FRED WERTHEIMER JUNE 12, 2023]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/06/trump-indictment-remove-judge-aileen-cannon.html]


Who's right? I have no idea. I don't have a law degree & I have no expertise in this area. I'm merely noting that, as with many things, experts can & do disagree on what might or will happen. And as always, thanks for your input! I always appreciate it.

[onenote]

37. Yes they do. But the cases she cites are not "persuasive" precedent.

First, the Torkington decision predates the Supreme Court decision (Liteky ) cited in my post by several years.

Second, the Martin case (which Vance litigated) doesn't discuss the Supreme Court's Liteky decision (or any other Supreme Court decision relating to the reassignment of a judge ) referenced in my post. Moreover, the facts of the Martin case are quite different from those presented, at least thus far, by Cannon's handling of the special master case and/ or the Trump criminal case. In Martin, the 11th Circuit emphasized that because the judge had been reversed twice on the same issue in the same case and in three other appeals for repeating the same legal error, there was reason to doubt that if sent back to decide that same issue correctly "the original judge would have difficulty putting his previous views and findings aside."

[jaxexpat]

21. If she's that unfit, Mr. Smith has a great opportunity to provide her a "teaching" moment.

[lastlib]

25. IOW, she's a midget in a land of giants.

and a not-very-bright one at that.

[NoMoreRepugs]

26. 14 whole days of trial experience on the bench - yet another Repug pretender.

[dalton99a]

39. +1

[RainCaster]

28. But she is very experienced in kissing his butt

That's all that matters according to the Federalists.

[onenote]

30. The article misrepresents her experience.

In particular, it leaves out the fact that she served as a clerk for a federal district court judge, which would have given her experience with regards to the ins and outs of federal criminal procedure.

More importantly, from 2013-2015, she was an assistant US Attorney in the "Major Crimes" division of the Southern District of Florida where she prosecuted 41 cases to conviction and conducted four jury trials. From 2016 until her appointment she was in the Appellate Division of the US Attorney's office, where she primarily worked on numerous cases where she defended the position of the US in appeals of criminal convictions.

In short, while she doesn't have much experience as a judge -- pretty typical of district court nominees -- she has considerable experience as a criminal law litigator.