With each new development in Donald Trump’s federal criminal case in Florida, it becomes increasingly clear that the presiding judge, Judge Eileen Cannon’s impartiality may be “reasonably called into question” as federal law dictates. This is important because the same law, 28 U.S. Code Section 455, provides that a judge may “recuse himself” from a case if his or her impartiality may be reasonably called into question. It is time for a fair, impartial and independent judge to assume responsibility for this case.
There is a mountain of evidence to support Cannon’s removal from office in the Florida case. Even before the case began, when Trump complained in court about the FBI seizing his belongings, Cannon ordered the Department of Justice to stop investigating classified documents recovered from Trump, even though they were seized pursuant to a lawfully issued search warrant. Cannon then appointed a special master to review the evidence seized by the FBI, bringing the investigation to a screeching halt.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Cannon’s conviction, finding that she abused her judicial discretion and emphasizing that judges have no power to interfere in an ongoing Department of Justice investigation. In simple terms, Cannon did something that was not permitted by law and was extremely favorable to Donald Trump. And it was in front The actual prosecution began.
In June 2023, Trump was indicted in the Florida case. After the case was assigned to Cannon, “two of her more experienced colleagues in Florida’s federal courts urged her to give up the case and turn it over to another judge,” The New York Times reported. Cannon refused, but since then, her actions have supported the conclusion that she is either incompetent, pro-Trump, or both.
Let’s start with Cannon’s refusal to set a trial date even though this case has already been in court for a year. I cannot overstate how unusual it is for a federal judge to set a trial date. decline Notably, the court asked for a trial date to be set after the defense lawyers informed the judge that they were prepared to hold the trial on August 12, 2024.
Court dates are set by judges. That’s the judge’s job. It’s important to have a trial date because all interim deadlines in criminal cases depend on that schedule. Once a trial date is set, the judge will set deadlines for filing, litigation, and resolution in advance of and in accordance with the trial date. Simply put, if there is no trial date, there is no need to set interim deadlines.
But with no trial date set, Judge Cannon has resolved to hold endless evidentiary hearings on motion after motion filed, primarily by the Trump campaign. Adding to the legal damage, Judge Cannon has been holding marathon hearings on motions that most outside observers consider meritless.
Here is a brief explanation of legal claims in criminal cases. When a defendant files a claim, he or she must clearly show sufficient facts and applicable precedents that, if proven, would entitle the defendant to some kind of relief or remedy. Fail To satisfy this “burden of proof,” judges almost always resolve motions with a single word: “deny.” However, Cannon appears to be ignoring the burden of proof requirements and instead setting lengthy evidentiary hearings.
For example, earlier this month Trump filed a “destruction of evidence” challenge, alleging that the FBI’s failure to record the exact location of each item in each box seized from Mar-a-Lago amounted to the FBI knowingly destroying exculpatory evidence. Having reviewed evidence seized in hundreds of criminal cases during my 30 years as a federal prosecutor, I find this claim absurd.
When the FBI executes a search warrant, evidence technicians thoroughly document the evidence that appears at the scene before it is seized. If the evidence is in a box, they open the box and photograph the contents on first viewing. They then take the box to an FBI facility, remove each item from the box, and meticulously document each item with photographs and descriptions.
Recently released photos of evidence seized at Mar-a-Lago show the box contained a mess of classified documents, golf shirts, newspaper clippings, and U.S. military plans. Trump’s argument that it would have been important to know whether a particular classified document was tucked next to a rolled-up golf shirt or a magazine cover featuring Trump – that its exact location in the box has any factual or legal significance – is completely without merit. But Cannon has refused to dismiss the allegations, and has not even committed to holding a hearing.
Additionally, Cannon’s handling of the jury instructions is laughable. Trump claims that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) gives him the authority to take classified documents and national defense information to his Florida vacation home when he leaves office. But in effect, the PRA’s text supports the exact opposite: that classified documents remain the property of the federal government even after the president leaves office. In limited circumstances, the president’s diaries, personal notes, and other similar documents may be removed. can Presidential diaries are designated personal records, not presidential records, and the president may remove them from office, although classified documents must be transferred to the National Archives for safekeeping.
Against this backdrop, Cannon in March asked the parties to propose jury instructions that considered two “competing scenarios.” The problem is that both scenarios applied the PRA incorrectly and ignored the purpose and intent of the statute. Assuming Her instructions were a correct formulation of the law.
To be clear, judges sometimes propose jury instructions and ask the parties what they think of those instructions, whether they think they are an accurate expression of the law, and whether they would like to propose alternative instructions to those the judge has put forward. I never have I’ve seen judges present clearly incorrect arguments of law and then instruct lawyers to assume that it is correct.
Earlier this month, Shira Scheindlin, a former federal judge who served for 27 years in the Southern District of New York, expressed concern that Cannon was “favoring” Trump and showing hostility toward the prosecutors in the case. Scheindlin also said that from her experience and speculation, it’s clear that Cannon is unable or unwilling to distinguish which claims can be resolved simply on the paperwork with a “dismissal” and which claims actually require an evidentiary hearing.
“I think she lacks experience, and I think that makes her judgments uncertain,” Scheindlin concluded, “but there may also be a delaying motive mixed in, to avoid sitting before the election.” At a time when current and former federal judges have voiced concerns and criticism about whether judges are qualified to take on certain cases, it’s unclear to what extent Cannon’s impartiality will be recognized. do not have Reasonable questions can be asked, and it is long past time for her to take over this important case.
This article originally appeared on MSNBC.com.
