Washington, D.C. – Lawyers and former judges have expressed confusion and concern over a recent order issued by the federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s upcoming trial on charges related to mishandling classified documents. The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, instructs the defense lawyers and prosecutors to submit proposed jury instructions based on two scenarios that experts claim misstate the law and facts of the case. This has led legal experts to believe that the trial may be significantly delayed.
The order requires the parties to craft jury instructions around competing interpretations of the Presidential Records Act (PRA). Trump’s lawyers argue that the PRA granted him the right to keep classified materials as personal property, while prosecutors and other legal experts disagree. Former federal judge Nancy Gertner expressed concern over Judge Cannon’s decision, stating that it gives credence to arguments that are “on their face absurd” and unreasonably delays the case.
Typically, judges make rulings on the laws central to the case before determining jury instructions closer to the trial date. However, Judge Cannon’s order seems to reverse this sequence, leading some to question the decision’s appropriateness. Jeremy Fogel, former federal judge for California, suggested that Cannon may be putting the “cart before the horse” by asking for jury instructions before deciding the legal issues.
Cannon, who presides over the first case involving a former U.S. president charged with a crime, may simply be seeking guidance in this unique situation. However, legal experts argue that her order is unusual and could significantly delay the trial. Furthermore, some experts question Judge Cannon’s embrace of Trump’s legal interpretation of the PRA, as it contradicts established legal precedents.
The trial date, originally set for May 20, may now be further postponed due to unresolved issues regarding the presentation of classified evidence in court. Prosecutors have requested an early July start, while Trump’s lawyers argue for a later date. Cannon’s recent instructions suggest that Trump’s PRA claims could be presented to the jury, despite a previous ruling by the appeals court that he cannot declare classified documents his personal property.
The unprecedented nature of this case raises questions about Judge Cannon’s rulings and potential bias. Some believe that special counsel Jack Smith should attempt to remove Cannon from the case, citing her rulings that make little sense and cause delays. However, the high standards for recusal make this a challenging task. Gertner’s suggestion is seen as far-fetched by many legal experts, who argue that Judge Cannon’s rulings, although challenging, do not meet the criteria for recusal.
Despite the obstacles created by Cannon’s order, veteran trial lawyers suggest that Smith should remain patient and confident in the evidence his team has amassed. They point to the trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, where the judge frequently criticized the special counsel team but the prosecutors ultimately prevailed.
As the trial against Trump for mishandling classified documents approaches, the decisions made by Judge Cannon will undoubtedly shape its outcome. The legal community will be closely watching to see how the trial proceeds and if any further controversies arise.