INDICTED

[Swerd]

>>>If the judge grants a directed verdict of acquittal before the case goes to the jury, that’s the end of it. That cannot be appealed.<<< (emphasis added)

In theory, unless Cannon recuses herself or the appeals court grants a motion to recuse her, she could just declare that Trump is innocent and that would be the end of it. This would surprise me, but almost everything Cannon did in the other Trump case last year surprised me.

I would have loved to be able to hear the discussion between Merrick Garland and Jack Smith (and others?) as they decided to pursue this case in a Miami federal court instead of Washington, DC. They had to be aware of Judge Cannon and her past odd ruling about a Special Master for the documents collected by the FBI. That ruling was later over-ruled by an appeals court. But how can Garland & Smith be certain she won't try something else equally odd?

 

[Mikado463]

could Christmas come early ?

Fox News’s Turley: Trump could face ‘terminal sentence’ if DOJ proves even one count

Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley says former President Trump could die in prison if convicted on just one count after being indicted by the Justice Department last week on dozens of charges related to his handling of classified documents. “The problem is, he’s got to run the table — he’s...

www.aol.com

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

The article touches on an important power judges have:

>>>If the judge grants a directed verdict of acquittal before the case goes to the jury, that’s the end of it. That cannot be appealed.<<< (emphasis added)

...

Scary stuff and am almost willing to bet that she might do it if there is a serious lifeline thrown towards her.

ps. has this ever happened?

 

[Mr._Clark]

Scary stuff and am almost willing to bet that she might do it if there is a serious lifeline thrown towards her.

ps. has this ever happened?

By way of background, only about 2% of federal criminal cases go to trial.

Only 2% of federal criminal defendants went to trial in 2018, and most who did were found guilty

Trials are rare in the federal criminal justice system: Just 2% of criminal defendants went to trial in fiscal 2018. Acquittals are even rarer.

www.pewresearch.org

But the conviction rate is 83% for the cases that do go to trial.

>>>Put another way, only 320 of 79,704 total federal defendants – fewer than 1% – went to trial and won their cases, at least in the form of an acquittal . . .<<<

The odds of a conviction and many years in prison are typically too much for a defendant to risk. Trump appears to be h*ll-bent on going to trial, so this case is probably an outlier just on that basis (I'm under the impression that Trump doesn't realize how poor his odds are).

I don't know what percentage of the 2% result in a directed verdict. My understanding is that it's not that unusual. However, this is a highly unusual case to begin with, and there's really no way to predict the chances of a directed verdict in this case based on a typical federal criminal case. It would be pure guesswork at this point.

It might be possible to make a somewhat better guess after all of the evidence is of record, but it would still be a guess.

 

[mtrycrafts]

By way of background, only about 2% of federal criminal cases go to trial.

Only 2% of federal criminal defendants went to trial in 2018, and most who did were found guilty

Trials are rare in the federal criminal justice system: Just 2% of criminal defendants went to trial in fiscal 2018. Acquittals are even rarer.

www.pewresearch.org

But the conviction rate is 83% for the cases that do go to trial.

>>>Put another way, only 320 of 79,704 total federal defendants – fewer than 1% – went to trial and won their cases, at least in the form of an acquittal . . .<<<

The odds of a conviction and many years in prison are typically too much for a defendant to risk. Trump appears to be h*ll-bent on going to trial, so this case is probably an outlier just on that basis (I'm under the impression that Trump doesn't realize how poor his odds are).

I don't know what percentage of the 2% result in a directed verdict. My understanding is that it's not that unusual. However, this is a highly unusual case to begin with, and there's really no way to predict the chances of a directed verdict in this case based on a typical federal criminal case. It would be pure guesswork at this point.

It might be possible to make a somewhat better guess after all of the evidence is of record, but it would still be a guess.

Thanks. And thanks for that "directed verdict."

A directed verdict is a ruling entered by a trial judge after determining that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to reach a different conclusion. The trial court may grant a directed verdict either sua sponte or upon a motion by either party.

So, the evidence has to be made into record how? As the case starts, before it starts or as the trial proceeds.
So, this judge could just flip through the evidence and come to her conclusion it is insufficient and call the verdict before any witnesses are heard from?
Scary in this case with the evidence at hand.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Thanks. And thanks for that "directed verdict."

A directed verdict is a ruling entered by a trial judge after determining that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to reach a different conclusion. The trial court may grant a directed verdict either sua sponte or upon a motion by either party.

So, the evidence has to be made into record how? As the case starts, before it starts or as the trial proceeds.
So, this judge could just flip through the evidence and come to her conclusion it is insufficient and call the verdict before any witnesses are heard from?
Scary in this case with the evidence at hand.

Typically the prosecutor would enter deposition transcripts, photos, copies of documents (eg the statement signed by Trump’s lawyer that a thorough search had been conducted). The prosecutor would also call witnesses and the defense would cross examine them. The defense may also call witnesses. Eventually the prosecutor and the defense will state that they have no more evidence to present. Normally this is when the judge would prepare jury instructions and the case would go to the jury, but the judge can enter a directed verdict instead.

Directed verdicts are intended to be a safeguard to make sure that someone is not improperly convicted based on exceptionally weak evidence, but a biased judge could abuse it and there would be little recourse.

District court judges typically aspire to be appeals court judges so they have an incentive to avoid really bad decisions that would result in their nomination being blocked. As a practical matter Cannon’s wacky rulings in the prior Trump case probably already toasted any chance she had for a seat on the appeals court so she might decide she has little to lose.

Ethically I’m not supposed to disparage a judge, but I have serious issues with Cannon.

 

[Swerd]

Ethically I’m not supposed to disparage a judge, but I have serious issues with Cannon.

We won't tell.

I'm a citizen, not a lawyer … but I also have serious issues with Cannon. I'll go so far as to suggest that she is already compromised by the defendant in this case … who nominated her as a federal district court judge.

Is it possible that AG Garland is setting a trap for Judge Cannon, by giving her some rope to see if she hangs herself with it? I don't get the impression that he is that devious, but I could easily be wrong. However, Garland has made it quite clear to Judge Cannon that he is watching this case closely – because of the defendant (obviously) – but also because of her prior ruling for a Special Master. I wonder if she is being challenged to recuse herself. And if she did recuse herself from this case, could that help redeem her tarnished reputation?

 

[TLS Guy]

We won't tell.

I'm a citizen, not a lawyer … but I also have serious issues with Cannon. I'll go so far as to suggest that she is already compromised by the defendant in this case … who nominated her as a federal district court judge.

I'm pretty sure Cannon is smart enough to know that Trump is "toast". So she will not go out on limb for a lost cause, and will protect her career and follow the law and evidence where ever it leads. She tried to do Trump a favor once and it backfired badly and I doubt she will go down that road again.

 

[isolar8001]

Cannon knows at this point that any course besides letting this proceed to its fullest will result in her becoming the Toast, along with Out of Teflon Donny.

 

[Swerd]

I'd like to believe that Judge Cannon is indeed smart enough to know that Trump is Toast. But, as Mr._Clark suggested, she also might believe that she has no chance at all to become a federal appeals court judge unless she finds a way to open the door for Trump to become president again.

I certainly hope she's smart enough to avoid doing that, but I'm not going to assume she's that smart.

All this is speculation. I'd rather wait and see what happens in this case before I speculate any further.

 

[Dude#1279435]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1666988505786986497

Hey Mikado, this old post is Mark Levin. He's the guy I said yells all the time way back when he was on radio. Why I called him Ole Yeller. I think now that he's older he had to take his heart meds before the speech above. When he was on radio I could only get through about 2 minutes cause he was hollering so much. On this one he's turned into a caricature. I like the part 1000s of documents -- so what!!! hahahahahaha

 

[Mr._Clark]

Is it possible that AG Garland is setting a trap for Judge Cannon, by giving her some rope to see if she hangs herself with it? I don't get the impression that he is that devious, but I could easily be wrong. However, Garland has made it quite clear to Judge Cannon that he is watching this case closely – because of the defendant (obviously) – but also because of her prior ruling for a Special Master. I wonder if she is being challenged to recuse herself. And if she did recuse herself from this case, could that help redeem her tarnished reputation?

I can't imagine Garland is scheming to set a trap of some sort. Cannon was assigned to this case randomly.

By and large the DOJ's concern is the proper functioning of the legal system, which includes a fair trial. The legal system is one of the most important institutions in our country and it's continuing viability requires public confidence in it's integrity. Trump is entitled to fair trial, but so is the DOJ.

Trump is obviously doing everything he can to undermine public confidence in the legal system, but to what end? Apparently he doesn't give a flying F about anything other than himself.

 

[Trell]

 

[Swerd]

I can't imagine Garland is scheming to set a trap of some sort. Cannon was assigned to this case randomly.

By and large the DOJ's concern is the proper functioning of the legal system, which includes a fair trial. The legal system is one of the most important institutions in our country and it's continuing viability requires public confidence in it's integrity. Trump is entitled to fair trial, but so is the DOJ.

Trump is obviously doing everything he can to undermine public confidence in the legal system, but to what end? Apparently he doesn't give a flying F about anything other than himself.

Thanks for your response. I admit my speculation was written late at night, and presented a scenario that I did think was unlikely, but still couldn't be ruled out as impossible.

This morning, I read in the Washington Post some more relevant comments about the venue selection, made by other lawyers experienced with federal criminal cases.

• About 2% of all federal criminal charges ever make it to a trial. Of the rest, most (80% or more) result in guilty pleas.
  
  
• It is likely that Miami was chosen as a venue because Garland & Smith are interested in speed, not delay. The Miami District Court has a past reputation for speed, mentioned in the Post article as a "rocket docket".

Judge Cannon was indeed randomly selected, a possibility that Garland was certain to be aware of. We'll see what Judge Cannon does. She could very well set a trial date as soon as possible, or she could allow Trump to drag things out into next year's political campaign.

However, I still maintain that Judge Cannon cannot be trusted.

• She is inexperienced, appointed by Trump during his last year in office. She now has 3 years experience as a sitting judge.
  
  
• She has already shown signs of political motivation, that make me uncomfortable.
  
  
• Trump has long practiced the politics of coercion (blackmail or extortion) on politicians, public officials, and judges. He has threatened witnesses. One example is Christie Todd Whitman, governor of New Jersey when Trump's casino/hotel was active in Atlantic City. Her son once appeared drunk & unruly in the casino, and Trump later warned her that 'it would be a shame if the video of her son were made public'. It's enough to make me wonder if he has done something like this with Judge Cannon. I don't know of any evidence for this, but the circumstances raise the possibility.

 

[Trell]

Thanks for your response. I admit my speculation was written late at night, and presented a scenario that I did think was unlikely, but still couldn't be ruled out as impossible.

This morning, I read in the Washington Post some more relevant comments about the venue selection, made by other lawyers experienced with federal criminal cases.

• About 2% of all federal criminal charges ever make it to a trial. Of the rest, most (80% or more) result in guilty pleas.
  
  
• It is likely that Miami was chosen as a venue because Garland & Smith are interested in speed, not delay. The Miami District Court has a past reputation for speed, mentioned in the Post article as a "rocket docket".

Judge Cannon was indeed randomly selected, a possibility that Garland was certain to be aware of. We'll see what Judge Cannon does. She could very well set a trial date as soon as possible, or she could allow Trump to drag things out into next year's political campaign.

However, I still maintain that Judge Cannon cannot be trusted.

• She is inexperienced, appointed by Trump during his last year in office. She now has 3 years experience as a sitting judge.
  
  
• She has already shown signs of political motivation, that make me uncomfortable.
  
  
• Trump has long practiced the politics of coercion (blackmail or extortion) on politicians, public officials, and judges. He has threatened witnesses. One example is Christie Todd Whitman, governor of New Jersey when Trump's casino/hotel was active in Atlantic City. Her son once appeared drunk & unruly in the casino, and Trump later warned her that 'it would be a shame if the video of her son were made public'. It's enough to make me wonder if he has done something like this with Judge Cannon. I don't know of any evidence for this, but the circumstances raise the possibility.

I think it's worth recalling that two of the three appellate judges that twice struck (smacked?) down Judge Cannon rulings in the document case where Trump-nominated judges, and in a number of other cases related to Trump (2020 election) did not go well for him either by Trump-nominated judges.

Perhaps she has learned something about this since then. The concern is there and everything she do or not do will be scrutinized, and then some.

 

[TLS Guy]

So the real fun starts in a couple of hours. He can't find criminal attorneys, and he will be represented by a couple of his current lawyers, who are not criminal lawyers, so probably less experienced than the public defender by far. Mind you, Trump just has to say not guilty until he looses count!

 

[cpp]

Well Trump is off to see the wizard at 3pm today.

 

[Swerd]

Well Trump is off to see the wizard at 3pm today.

Never mind that man woman behind the curtain black robe!

 

[Mr._Clark]

So the real fun starts in a couple of hours. He can't find criminal attorneys, and he will be represented by a couple of his current lawyers, who are not criminal lawyers, so probably less experienced than the public defender by far. Mind you, Trump just has to say not guilty until he looses count!

I wonder what the over/under is on Trump getting distracted and saying "guilty" at some point?

 

[Dude#1279435]

Legal Eagle goes over what happened.