There is no trial date in the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, and none in sight.
Instead of sending the case as quickly as possible to a jury, the judge, Aileen Cannon, spent day after day in court listening to lawyers haggle over defense motions that make what experts say are unlikely arguments to dismiss the charges and exclude evidence. or otherwise attack the accusation.
On Friday, the latest chapter in this legal saga will unfold in Cannon’s courtroom in Fort Pierce, Florida, when she presides over a day-long hearing on the question of whether the appointment of special prosecutor Jack Smith was appropriate under the Constitution – a similar argument. for one who was rejected by other judges when applied to special advisors Robert Muellerwho directed the investigation into Trump’s relationship with Russia, and David Weiss, who is suing Hunter Biden.
On Monday, Cannon is scheduled to hear a defense challenge to how Smith’s office was funded, another line of argument that has been uniformly rejected by other courts. And on Tuesday, she will consider the question of whether a D.C. judge made a mistake in allowing Trump’s lawyer to testify under the criminal fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.
These are the types of motions, some criminal law experts say, that few judges would have considered during drawn-out hearings. Instead, they say, she could have read the legal documents and issued a ruling.
By continuing to demand court hours for nearly every controversial issue, Cannon, a Trump appointee, has joined Trump’s strategy of trying to delay the trial of this case until after the election. Although she says she is just trying to ensure justice, her actions have raised questions among legal experts.
“Motions that other judges would routinely and quickly rule on, Judge Cannon puts them on her docket and delays them for an inordinate amount of time,” said Joyce Vance, an MSNBC legal contributor and former U.S. attorney. “It’s like death by a thousand cuts.”
Most peculiar, experts say, is Cannon’s decision to allow outside parties to argue before her on Friday that Smith’s appointment is unconstitutional.
“It’s highly unusual to bring in amicus,” said John Fishwick, a former U.S. attorney, using part of the Latin term for “friends of the court.” “That never happens.”
Shira Scheindlin, now retired after 22 years as a federal judge in New York City, added: “There is no reason to allow (outside parties) to come in and argue your petition. They have no right to be heard.”
It may be appropriate, she said, to allow Trump’s lawyers to briefly argue the issue of Smith’s nomination because there is a unique issue — he is the only special counsel in recent memory who has never been confirmed by the Senate. Those who dispute his appointment say the founders did not foresee investing such power in someone never confirmed.
Overall, however, Scheindlin believes Cannon mismanaged the confidential documents case by failing to act quickly.
“She drags everything… she is very slow and is increasing the time it takes and now she has accumulated movements, they are all delayed.”
Cannon’s defenders vehemently dispute this view. Jon Sale, a former federal prosecutor in Florida who recommended Cannon for the judgeship, said criticism of his judicial approach is driven largely by disagreement with some of his decisions.
“For the life of me, I don’t understand why she is criticized for holding hearings in a case that is extraordinarily important, that the entire world is watching,” he said. “It shows she is thinking carefully about this. If you take the politics out of it, there should be no rush to judgment.”
Cannon did not respond to a request for comment on a voicemail left at his quarters.
Appointed by Trump in 2020, Cannon has been on the federal bench for less than four years and this is by far the most high-profile issue she has tackled.
Born in Cali, Colombia, she graduated from Duke University in 2003 and graduated magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School in 2007.
After clerking for a judge and working at a law firm, she served from 2013 to 2020 as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, working on major crimes and the appellate section.
A member of the conservative Federalist Society, she is a long-time Republican but is not politically active. She said that her mother fled Fidel Castro’s Cuba when she was 7 years old.
Cannon first attracted public scrutiny when she was randomly assigned to litigation over the FBI search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago compound in Florida. To the shock of many legal experts, she responded to a request from Trump’s lawyers to appoint a special master to review everything the FBI seized. She cited the fact that Trump is a former president.
In December 2022, a three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta terminated the special master in a 21-page decision who sharply rebuked Cannon, saying he sought to create “a special exception” for Trump that would “challenge our nation’s fundamental principle” that all are equal before the law.
This ended Cannon’s involvement in the matter. But after Trump was indicted, a judge had to be randomly assigned from a small group in the northern part of the Southern District of Florida. Of the four available judges, Cannon decided the case.
On Thursday, the New York Times reported that Cannon rejected suggestions from two federal judges that she not take the case. One of them cited the optics of reversing his special master decision. The other said the case should be handled closer to Miami.
Cannon repeatedly sparred with the prosecutors assigned to the case, who at times seemed exasperated by his heavy-handed approach.
In March, when one of the prosecutors urged Cannon to “keep things moving,” she bristled.
“I can assure you that behind the scenes there is a lot of judicial work going on,” she said. “So while it may not appear on the surface that anything is happening, there is a lot of work being done.”
But experts say Cannon hasn’t done anything that rises to the level of Smith asking for her to be removed from the case.
Cannon ruled against Trump on important issues. In April, she ruled against his claim that the case should be dismissed because the Presidential Records Act allowed Trump to consider confidential documents he allegedly kept at Mar-a-Lago as his personal records.
But it took her months to govern. On other issues, it forced prosecutors to overcome all technical hurdles. A few weeks ago, when Smith filed a motion asking her to stop Trump from falsely saying the FBI was authorized to kill him during the Mar-a-Lago search, she blocked the motion on the grounds that the special counsel did not sufficiently consult the Trump’s lawyers before introducing him. He filed it again and it will be among the topics discussed in the marathon hearings that will take place in the coming days.
Most legal experts believe the case is unlikely to go to trial before the November elections. That means voters won’t know whether a jury believes Trump is guilty of endangering national security and obstructing justice.
“This is important information for voters to know,” Vance said.
“If she had done her job, we would have a verdict by now,” Scheindlin said. “It’s a shame.”
This story originally appeared on NBCNews.com read the full story
