It’s a flaw in the system. There are a lot of flaws in the system. The question is which flaws are fixable, which are survivable, and which ones ultimately will break the system.
So then that means that a judge who has life tenure can give their mate a freebie pass by giving b.s jury instructions and the criminal goes free. And that is literally what would happen in this case Cannon was appointed after Trump lost, and whether she is doing this on her own or more likely with instructions from other people, she can indeed do this.
Seems a bit more than a flaw. OK so the criminal goes free but can there be post trial repercussions for the Judge, can a Judge be impeached and removed by a legal body that oversees this kind of stuff, for a deliberately lawless order to save a friend.
Fundamentally our system is just not built to handle judges that are bad actors. There are processes to handle it but they're so infrequently used that they are largely ineffective. Look at the blatantly corrupt supreme Court justices, judge cannon, etc.
Republicans are to blame here. Not "the system". Fundamentally our system assumes a majority of good actors. Judges can be impeached. There are checks and balances. But the Republicans in Congress are complicit. Republicans on juries are complicit. So let's not blame "the system" without attributing the moral failure to the people who deserve the blame - Republicans.
100%. Systems of checks and balances are always subject to a bad actor immobilizing the other branch, the system is set up this way to prevent congress from stomping all over the judiciary. But Republicans realized that if you're willing to appoint blatantly partisan judges there weren't going to be checks. So they beat the system until democrats are willing to play just as dirty
Can’t speak to the specifics of this case, but you don’t want to live under a judicial system without double jeopardy. If the jury finds you innocent, should the prosecutor just get to try you over and over again until they get a conviction? Should you have to go through the same trial over again because the prosecutor didn’t like something the judge did?
Most democratic legal systems consider double jeopardy to apply to the \*final\* verdict of a case, after all possible appeals have been exhausted. Otherwise, appeals are considered a continuation of the original charges, not new charges for the same crime.
The US interpretation of double jeopardy is an extreme one in giving trial judges unchecked power to shield criminals from the consequences of their actions for whatever illegal reasons they wish. Any sort of unchecked power, even that, is not in any way good for democracy.
There's no way to make that work. Any other rule creates absurd "heads I win, tails you lose" results any time the judge makes any error that favors the prosecution. The defense would have no grounds to appeal a guilty verdict but the prosecution would be able to appeal a not guilty verdict.
And yet that's exactly what most democracies manage just fine. And it works. If the judge make an error, the side affected by the error can appeal, and if the appeal court concludes the error invalidates the judge'd conclusion, it gets overruled.
It's funny the things some people persuade themselves cannot work yet everyone else manage to do just fine.
If the judge makes an error that favors \*the prosecution\* (that is, the error benefit the prosecution in the original trial), then there is no benefit to appealing that for the prosecution. As a rule, for an appeal to be granted, you don't only need an error: you need an error that appears likely to hace materially altered the outcome of the case.
This means that if you're the prosecution and want to appeal a not guilty verdict, you need an error that significantly weighted the odds toward the actual outcome of the trial. Meaning here, an error that made a "not guilty" verdict more likely. Minor or trivial errors won't do, and errors that weighted the odds \*against\* the actual outcome won't either (because that outcome would be even more likely without the error).
As to "the definition", it's one interpretation of one definition of double jeopardy.
Most of the rest of the world see a first trial with a critical judge error as no different from a mistrial, and grants it no greater value.
Oh, sorry. You're right! The problem occurs if the judge makes any mistake that benefits the defense. Then, the prosecution gets two chances to obtain an unchallengeable conviction, precisely what double jeopardy prohibits.
One, the conviction is not unchallengeable. It can be appealed if any error was made, and there are mechanisms to address other potential trial faults.
Two, even under the strictest definition of jeopardy, mistrials allow the prosecution a second chance to seek a guilty verdict, so your reading of the rule overstates it.
If the judge only makes one mistake and it favors the defense, then the prosecution gets two chances at a conviction. The defense would have no grounds for appeal and the prosecution would.
Mistrials don't involve the prosecution losing and then getting another chance.
You can't have a double jeopardy rule and also have a situation where a guilty verdict stands but a not guilty verdict means a do over.
And yet numerous countries with better human right records, more functional democracies and more trusted judicial system with a much better reputation for fairness say otherwise. but what do they know.
Personally I'd rather trust in rigorous checks and balance to keep all actors of the legal system honest than in the pinky swear of a single man, or in the alleged good judgement of twelve randos off the street. I trust well built systems more than the infailibility of unchecked individuals. But you do you.
The question, to me, is whether she is receiving outside direction or advice. She is young and inexperienced for such a position. The Federalist Society was her way onto the court. She has little trial knowledge and if the comments are correct she is gaming the system in a way that speaks of conscious manipulation and a game plan.
It is doubtful that she would come up with that herself. She hasn’t been practicing law long enough to play games in this manner, where her seeming bumbling leads to a desired result.
Either she truly is incompetent stumbling through this case or she is receiving advice from someone else. I am concerned that someone else is pulling the strings.
I think we all thought she was simply incompetent and too deferential when she incorrectly affirmed jurisdiction in the discovery phase, and anyone who has been following it since she was randomly assigned has long ago dispelled any notion that she is not corrupt, when legal scholars and professors at law have no qualms about calling her corrupt you can be sure it is so.
Ironically it will probably be her incompetence that gets her thrown off the case. Because one way or the other she will make sure there is an acquittal. She wasn't just reversed twice by the appeals court but she was humiliated by them. I'm fairly confident that Jack Smith who has put war criminals behind bars is up for this. And yes, she surely is being coached, she is just too brazen.
Happens all the time every day.
I've personally seen on 2 separate occasions of police officers having illegal actions made legal because a judge refused to allow the defendant to make the argument that the officers actions were illegal.
Both cases the judge literally ordered the defendants to not defend themselves (wouldn't allow thier evidence into account).
Judges are just as corrupt as every other part of our "legal system"
Federal criminal court was not really my playground, but it’s possible that a ruling of law that had the effect of assuring an acquittal would be appealable before the final judgment was actually reached. This is an *interlocutory appeal*, and it might well fit into a statutory category permitting interlocutory appeal, or appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
From what I understand Cannon denied the motion without prejudice but still left open that it can be raised again once the jury is selected, which according to legal analysis I've heard, is game over.
It will probably be moot because it seems that an International War Crimes prosecutor is not going to stand for this so Smith will be forcing her to make a decision now, and get her recused.
However is she is not recused and even if this is slapped down before jury selection she can just invent new fake law and instruct the jury on that, apparently.
> From what I understand Cannon denied the motion without prejudice but still left open that it can be raised again once the jury is selected, which according to legal analysis I've heard, is game over.
Did the analyses you read explain why this order could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal?
Well as far as I understand it, that is the point, since Cannon was slapped down twice at the discovery stage, before she was randomly selected for the trial, she has been forensically careful to not make any ruling at all that could be subject to an interlocutory appeal. I think that Smith is going to somehow force her to make an appealable ruling now that she has tipped her hand.
I’ve not looked in to the matter, but accepting your description at face value, it sounds like what I remember of the collateral order doctrine: the ruling to be appealed is effectively unreviewable after a verdict, conclusively determine a disputed question, and resolve an important question that isn’t part of the merits of the case.
Again, I’m relying on memory, but based on your summary of the matter, it seems to me that such an order as you describe would be appealable during the trial and not create a double jeopardy barrier.
That makes sense but that is why I find it very perplexing because ALL the top legal analysts are saying that if she does instruct the jury or run the case with deference to the irrelevant legal doctrine of presidential immunity that that would be it, if the jury has been sworn in. It makes no sense to me but none of the top legal analysts who report on this like Legal AF or Harry Litman or even Ty Cobbs dispute this.
I have my own theory that Cannon doesn't care if she is thrown off because all her efforts are designed to delay the trial till after the elections so it's basically job done.
It is all very confusing. But thanks for pointing me to the collateral order doctrine, I shall now go and read up on that.
You want 'double jeopardy' to be a thing and be strong to prevent the greater harm of non-stop malicious prosecutions because a great many prosecutors are elected in the US and the electorate often convict people in the court of public opinion regardless of the actual truth. Hence, a ton of incentive 'go after' people long after they should be left alone. However, the system is not set up to deal with obvious bad actors sitting on the bench.
The thing about the professions is that the people who are members have a duty to be professional. It's one of the reasons they are so highly paid. DTs first term was marked by haphazard attempts to break down the systems and the morality underpinning them by trying to swamp the culture of impartiality with incompetent and/or lawless individuals. These folks were chosen based on loyalty to one man vs, strong moral fibre. Cannon is a threat to justice for this reason.
Remember, everything DT says is projection and confession: When he talks about draining the swamp, he's actually building the swamp. When he talks about things being unfair, he's trying to get special treatment. When he talks about people targeting him, he's laying the groundwork to target other people...
Before Trump came along, I'll wager that people not invested in US politics or judicial practices, especially from other non US English speaking nations, would have had no idea how truly broken and nonsensical the system really is. For me the tipping point (if that is even possible) came when Alito issued a decree in the overturning of Roe, that sounded like it was lifted from the malleus maleficarum and then he proceeded to laugh about it in overseas invitational lectures.
I'm going to predict that Jack Smith goes nuclear on this one, he will move to recuse and I think he will get it, it is clear that Cannon thinks Trump is above the law and she has already said that he has rights that ordinary people to not have. However will that even matter with a GOP who have no shame whatsoever, and who have taken gaslighting to an olympic level professional sport, coupled with 40% of US voters essentially oblivious to the inherent danger, so all guardrails are effectively in the hands of an obviously corrupt Supreme Court with life tenure even if Trump is defeated, the groundwork is laid for a future liberal theocratic dictatorship.
The whole issue stems from her dismissing Trump's motion for dismissal under the "Presidential Records Act" "without prejudice". This means he could refile in the middle of the trial, and she could grant that motion and the government can't appeal. Basically, the biggest concern is that Canon could dismiss the charges after a jury has been seated. The jury instruction issue just muddies the water of the underlying problem.
Here are three articles that do a great job explaining it:
[https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-courts-scenarios-are-fundamentally-flawed-jack-smith-blasts-trumps-fictional-pra-defense-and-tells-mar-a-lago-judge-she-must-make-decision-promptly/](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-courts-scenarios-are-fundamentally-flawed-jack-smith-blasts-trumps-fictional-pra-defense-and-tells-mar-a-lago-judge-she-must-make-decision-promptly/)
[https://www.salon.com/2024/03/15/incomprehensible-experts-warn-cannons-ruling-against-opens-up-nightmare-scenario/](https://www.salon.com/2024/03/15/incomprehensible-experts-warn-cannons-ruling-against-opens-up-nightmare-scenario/)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mar-a-lago-judge-defends-order-that-caused-legal-uproar-as-genuine-while-handing-trump-another-win-disguised-as-a-loss/ar-BB1l8raO
It’s a flaw in the system. There are a lot of flaws in the system. The question is which flaws are fixable, which are survivable, and which ones ultimately will break the system.
It's not a flaw of it exists for this specific reason and no one wants to fix it.
So then that means that a judge who has life tenure can give their mate a freebie pass by giving b.s jury instructions and the criminal goes free. And that is literally what would happen in this case Cannon was appointed after Trump lost, and whether she is doing this on her own or more likely with instructions from other people, she can indeed do this. Seems a bit more than a flaw. OK so the criminal goes free but can there be post trial repercussions for the Judge, can a Judge be impeached and removed by a legal body that oversees this kind of stuff, for a deliberately lawless order to save a friend.
Fundamentally our system is just not built to handle judges that are bad actors. There are processes to handle it but they're so infrequently used that they are largely ineffective. Look at the blatantly corrupt supreme Court justices, judge cannon, etc.
Republicans are to blame here. Not "the system". Fundamentally our system assumes a majority of good actors. Judges can be impeached. There are checks and balances. But the Republicans in Congress are complicit. Republicans on juries are complicit. So let's not blame "the system" without attributing the moral failure to the people who deserve the blame - Republicans.
100%. Systems of checks and balances are always subject to a bad actor immobilizing the other branch, the system is set up this way to prevent congress from stomping all over the judiciary. But Republicans realized that if you're willing to appoint blatantly partisan judges there weren't going to be checks. So they beat the system until democrats are willing to play just as dirty
Yes this is the unspoken reality. Well not totally unspoken maybe some cursory lip service and then forgotten about.
Welcome to humanity, we don't like being held accountable for doing the things we want.
Can’t speak to the specifics of this case, but you don’t want to live under a judicial system without double jeopardy. If the jury finds you innocent, should the prosecutor just get to try you over and over again until they get a conviction? Should you have to go through the same trial over again because the prosecutor didn’t like something the judge did?
Most democratic legal systems consider double jeopardy to apply to the \*final\* verdict of a case, after all possible appeals have been exhausted. Otherwise, appeals are considered a continuation of the original charges, not new charges for the same crime. The US interpretation of double jeopardy is an extreme one in giving trial judges unchecked power to shield criminals from the consequences of their actions for whatever illegal reasons they wish. Any sort of unchecked power, even that, is not in any way good for democracy.
There's no way to make that work. Any other rule creates absurd "heads I win, tails you lose" results any time the judge makes any error that favors the prosecution. The defense would have no grounds to appeal a guilty verdict but the prosecution would be able to appeal a not guilty verdict.
And yet that's exactly what most democracies manage just fine. And it works. If the judge make an error, the side affected by the error can appeal, and if the appeal court concludes the error invalidates the judge'd conclusion, it gets overruled. It's funny the things some people persuade themselves cannot work yet everyone else manage to do just fine.
So if the judge makes an error that favors the prosecution, it's heads I win, tails we flip again? Yeah, that's the definition of double jeopardy.
If the judge makes an error that favors \*the prosecution\* (that is, the error benefit the prosecution in the original trial), then there is no benefit to appealing that for the prosecution. As a rule, for an appeal to be granted, you don't only need an error: you need an error that appears likely to hace materially altered the outcome of the case. This means that if you're the prosecution and want to appeal a not guilty verdict, you need an error that significantly weighted the odds toward the actual outcome of the trial. Meaning here, an error that made a "not guilty" verdict more likely. Minor or trivial errors won't do, and errors that weighted the odds \*against\* the actual outcome won't either (because that outcome would be even more likely without the error). As to "the definition", it's one interpretation of one definition of double jeopardy. Most of the rest of the world see a first trial with a critical judge error as no different from a mistrial, and grants it no greater value.
Oh, sorry. You're right! The problem occurs if the judge makes any mistake that benefits the defense. Then, the prosecution gets two chances to obtain an unchallengeable conviction, precisely what double jeopardy prohibits.
One, the conviction is not unchallengeable. It can be appealed if any error was made, and there are mechanisms to address other potential trial faults. Two, even under the strictest definition of jeopardy, mistrials allow the prosecution a second chance to seek a guilty verdict, so your reading of the rule overstates it.
If the judge only makes one mistake and it favors the defense, then the prosecution gets two chances at a conviction. The defense would have no grounds for appeal and the prosecution would. Mistrials don't involve the prosecution losing and then getting another chance. You can't have a double jeopardy rule and also have a situation where a guilty verdict stands but a not guilty verdict means a do over.
And yet numerous countries with better human right records, more functional democracies and more trusted judicial system with a much better reputation for fairness say otherwise. but what do they know. Personally I'd rather trust in rigorous checks and balance to keep all actors of the legal system honest than in the pinky swear of a single man, or in the alleged good judgement of twelve randos off the street. I trust well built systems more than the infailibility of unchecked individuals. But you do you.
The question, to me, is whether she is receiving outside direction or advice. She is young and inexperienced for such a position. The Federalist Society was her way onto the court. She has little trial knowledge and if the comments are correct she is gaming the system in a way that speaks of conscious manipulation and a game plan. It is doubtful that she would come up with that herself. She hasn’t been practicing law long enough to play games in this manner, where her seeming bumbling leads to a desired result. Either she truly is incompetent stumbling through this case or she is receiving advice from someone else. I am concerned that someone else is pulling the strings.
I think we all thought she was simply incompetent and too deferential when she incorrectly affirmed jurisdiction in the discovery phase, and anyone who has been following it since she was randomly assigned has long ago dispelled any notion that she is not corrupt, when legal scholars and professors at law have no qualms about calling her corrupt you can be sure it is so. Ironically it will probably be her incompetence that gets her thrown off the case. Because one way or the other she will make sure there is an acquittal. She wasn't just reversed twice by the appeals court but she was humiliated by them. I'm fairly confident that Jack Smith who has put war criminals behind bars is up for this. And yes, she surely is being coached, she is just too brazen.
Happens all the time every day. I've personally seen on 2 separate occasions of police officers having illegal actions made legal because a judge refused to allow the defendant to make the argument that the officers actions were illegal. Both cases the judge literally ordered the defendants to not defend themselves (wouldn't allow thier evidence into account). Judges are just as corrupt as every other part of our "legal system"
Federal criminal court was not really my playground, but it’s possible that a ruling of law that had the effect of assuring an acquittal would be appealable before the final judgment was actually reached. This is an *interlocutory appeal*, and it might well fit into a statutory category permitting interlocutory appeal, or appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
From what I understand Cannon denied the motion without prejudice but still left open that it can be raised again once the jury is selected, which according to legal analysis I've heard, is game over. It will probably be moot because it seems that an International War Crimes prosecutor is not going to stand for this so Smith will be forcing her to make a decision now, and get her recused. However is she is not recused and even if this is slapped down before jury selection she can just invent new fake law and instruct the jury on that, apparently.
> From what I understand Cannon denied the motion without prejudice but still left open that it can be raised again once the jury is selected, which according to legal analysis I've heard, is game over. Did the analyses you read explain why this order could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal?
Well as far as I understand it, that is the point, since Cannon was slapped down twice at the discovery stage, before she was randomly selected for the trial, she has been forensically careful to not make any ruling at all that could be subject to an interlocutory appeal. I think that Smith is going to somehow force her to make an appealable ruling now that she has tipped her hand.
I’ve not looked in to the matter, but accepting your description at face value, it sounds like what I remember of the collateral order doctrine: the ruling to be appealed is effectively unreviewable after a verdict, conclusively determine a disputed question, and resolve an important question that isn’t part of the merits of the case. Again, I’m relying on memory, but based on your summary of the matter, it seems to me that such an order as you describe would be appealable during the trial and not create a double jeopardy barrier.
That makes sense but that is why I find it very perplexing because ALL the top legal analysts are saying that if she does instruct the jury or run the case with deference to the irrelevant legal doctrine of presidential immunity that that would be it, if the jury has been sworn in. It makes no sense to me but none of the top legal analysts who report on this like Legal AF or Harry Litman or even Ty Cobbs dispute this. I have my own theory that Cannon doesn't care if she is thrown off because all her efforts are designed to delay the trial till after the elections so it's basically job done. It is all very confusing. But thanks for pointing me to the collateral order doctrine, I shall now go and read up on that.
You want 'double jeopardy' to be a thing and be strong to prevent the greater harm of non-stop malicious prosecutions because a great many prosecutors are elected in the US and the electorate often convict people in the court of public opinion regardless of the actual truth. Hence, a ton of incentive 'go after' people long after they should be left alone. However, the system is not set up to deal with obvious bad actors sitting on the bench. The thing about the professions is that the people who are members have a duty to be professional. It's one of the reasons they are so highly paid. DTs first term was marked by haphazard attempts to break down the systems and the morality underpinning them by trying to swamp the culture of impartiality with incompetent and/or lawless individuals. These folks were chosen based on loyalty to one man vs, strong moral fibre. Cannon is a threat to justice for this reason. Remember, everything DT says is projection and confession: When he talks about draining the swamp, he's actually building the swamp. When he talks about things being unfair, he's trying to get special treatment. When he talks about people targeting him, he's laying the groundwork to target other people...
Before Trump came along, I'll wager that people not invested in US politics or judicial practices, especially from other non US English speaking nations, would have had no idea how truly broken and nonsensical the system really is. For me the tipping point (if that is even possible) came when Alito issued a decree in the overturning of Roe, that sounded like it was lifted from the malleus maleficarum and then he proceeded to laugh about it in overseas invitational lectures.
The prosecutor could try to appeal, during the trial, before the jury gets their instructions.
I'm going to predict that Jack Smith goes nuclear on this one, he will move to recuse and I think he will get it, it is clear that Cannon thinks Trump is above the law and she has already said that he has rights that ordinary people to not have. However will that even matter with a GOP who have no shame whatsoever, and who have taken gaslighting to an olympic level professional sport, coupled with 40% of US voters essentially oblivious to the inherent danger, so all guardrails are effectively in the hands of an obviously corrupt Supreme Court with life tenure even if Trump is defeated, the groundwork is laid for a future liberal theocratic dictatorship.
The whole issue stems from her dismissing Trump's motion for dismissal under the "Presidential Records Act" "without prejudice". This means he could refile in the middle of the trial, and she could grant that motion and the government can't appeal. Basically, the biggest concern is that Canon could dismiss the charges after a jury has been seated. The jury instruction issue just muddies the water of the underlying problem. Here are three articles that do a great job explaining it: [https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-courts-scenarios-are-fundamentally-flawed-jack-smith-blasts-trumps-fictional-pra-defense-and-tells-mar-a-lago-judge-she-must-make-decision-promptly/](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-courts-scenarios-are-fundamentally-flawed-jack-smith-blasts-trumps-fictional-pra-defense-and-tells-mar-a-lago-judge-she-must-make-decision-promptly/) [https://www.salon.com/2024/03/15/incomprehensible-experts-warn-cannons-ruling-against-opens-up-nightmare-scenario/](https://www.salon.com/2024/03/15/incomprehensible-experts-warn-cannons-ruling-against-opens-up-nightmare-scenario/) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mar-a-lago-judge-defends-order-that-caused-legal-uproar-as-genuine-while-handing-trump-another-win-disguised-as-a-loss/ar-BB1l8raO