# FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [August 8, 2022, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329 "2022-08-08T23:18:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 422
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8446 "2024-07-16T03:34:19Z")
Huh, now that I think about it, why _didn’t_ she dismiss with prejudice? My understanding was that such a dismissal would’ve been unappealable, unreviewable, and permanent. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8447 "2024-07-16T03:36:21Z")
No, it would still be appealable, because jeopardy had not yet attached. No judgment or verdict on the charges was rendered. Up to that point, either side has a right of appeal. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8448 "2024-07-16T03:37:52Z")
Oooh, that’s right, I think I remember that now, thanks. Guess she was just not willing to wait until after jeopardy applied? ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8449 "2024-07-16T03:39:28Z")
I think her whole deal was to delay the proceedings until after the election. In this, she succeeded beyond all expectation. Of course we did not then know the extent to which the Supreme Court would be complicit. We had better remember that going forward. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8450 "2024-07-16T16:56:00Z")
I was going to suggest perhaps she felt emboldened by the idea that Trump’s surviving the assassination attempt makes him a lock for winning the election, but I doubt she (and her law clerk(s)) could have whipped up the decision so fast. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8451 "2024-07-16T17:28:48Z")
My conspiracy theory - one that no one should take seriously - is that Judge Cannon was in on the assassination attempt. She had the case dismissal in the pipeline because he was supposed to be dead by then, but it was too late to stop it going through. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8452 "2024-07-16T17:49:32Z")
> [@not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](#): > > …one other option is that Jack Smith can be made an employee instead of named special counsel since that’s what she ruled on. That is what they did with the 1200 people in my position. At some point a memo went out saying someone somewhere waved a magic wand and characterized us some way or another that had absolutely zero effect on us continuing to do our jobs in exactly the same manner we did before. The issue was whether we were employees or inferior officers, and WHO specifically hired/appointed us (whether it was the head of our Agency or someone else.) Like I said, IMO, a stupid argument by someone grasping at straws, who lucked into a court that bought it. At most, a distinction without a difference. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8453 "2024-07-16T18:11:50Z")
I like it. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8454 "2024-07-16T18:19:03Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > I was going to suggest perhaps she felt emboldened by the idea that Trump’s surviving the assassination attempt makes him a lock for winning the election, but I doubt she (and her law clerk(s)) could have whipped up the decision so fast. Isn’t this the same judge who asked lawyers from both sides to submit jury instructions based on her own predetermined (and rather idiosyncratic) interpretation of the law? If she’s thinking that far ahead in the trial, and is getting other people to do her homework for her, then it wouldn’t surprise me if she’d had this dismissal drawn up by her clerks months ago and had been sitting on it until an opportunity like this presented itself. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8455 "2024-07-16T18:32:17Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > She had the case dismissal in the pipeline because he was supposed to be dead by then, but it was too late to stop it going through If he was dead, why dismiss the case? There would be no _case_ because there would be no _defendant_. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8456 "2024-07-16T18:43:07Z")
Exactly! ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8457 "2024-07-16T19:10:35Z")
I thought it was clear that the bonkers Trump v. US decision by SCOTUS emboldened her, particularly what “Justice” Thomas wrote. The shame is that both this dismissal, and the Trump v. US decision, were not needed. The adjudication delays did the job of pushing the trials past election day. No other insanity was necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8458 "2024-07-16T21:38:59Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Isn’t this the same judge who asked lawyers from both sides to submit jury instructions based on her own predetermined (and rather idiosyncratic) interpretation of the law? This (asking for proposed instructions) doesn’t sound unreasonable to me at all. Parties are usually very involved in the wording of the jury instructions, aren’t they? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8459 "2024-07-16T21:46:58Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Parties are usually very involved in the wording of the jury instructions, aren’t they? Not _before_ the trial starts. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2024, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8460 "2024-07-16T21:48:40Z")
And not usually starting with an implied understanding that already takes one side’s position. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2024, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8461 "2024-07-17T15:03:42Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > Not _before_ the trial starts. Yes, judges often require the parties to submit proposed instructions before the trial starts. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > And not usually starting with an implied understanding that already takes one side’s position Sometimes the judge will indicate what they believe the instructions should address, but leave open the opportunity for the parties to convince them otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2024, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8462 "2024-07-17T15:20:43Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Yes, judges often require the parties to submit proposed instructions before the trial starts. I thought her asking the parties to do this was one of the points of contention. You even pointed out yourself that things don’t work that way in your area. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > In California, the judge would have each side submit a proposed set of instructions _based on how things had unfolded at trial_. > [@](#): > > So to me, there are two very odd things Cannon has done: First, to ask for jury instructions _of any kind_ at this point in the proceedings; (your emphasis/italics, I didn’t add it) That’s where I got it in my head that, of course, it wouldn’t make sense to do the jury instructions beforehand. They have to see how the trial plays out. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2024, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8463 "2024-07-17T15:24:51Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > You even pointed out yourself that things don’t work that way in your area. I’m flattered, but that’s not me. I my practice, I often (not always) get a request from judges before trial to submit instructions. They’re not finalized until sometime late in the trial, but both sides usually have to submit contested and uncontested set of instructions before the trial begins. ETA: I don’t know what the standard practice is in the SDFL. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2024, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8464 "2024-07-17T15:45:58Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > That’s where I got it in my head that, of course, it wouldn’t make sense to do the jury instructions beforehand. They have to see how the trial plays out. I oversimplified. Jury instructions are always a mix of standard, boiler-plate type instructions that are given for all trials and special instructions that are crafted just for the particular trial before the court. What the special instructions end up being depends on a number of things: The judge’s rulings on pretrial motions and/or objections raised during the trial; how a witness testifies, etc. The attorneys have a pretty good idea what instructions they want before the trial starts, but jury instructions can’t be finalized until after the trial has been presented. In the courts where I worked, judges postponed going over instructions altogether until the trial was virtually over. But I can see how it would be otherwise in different places. I still maintain that a judge couldn’t really _finalize_ the jury instructions until the trial was done. To do otherwise is to pre-determine the outcome of the trial. That’s what Cannon was doing, especially since the instructions she requested the prosecution to submit would only be offered for a particular outcome favorable to the defendant. I apologize for being imprecise in what I was trying to say and causing confusion for you. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2024, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8465 "2024-07-17T16:28:26Z")
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the norm for the judge to request proposed jury instructions close to the start of trial, as part of the last pretrial housekeeping? Not months and months before the trial is even scheduled to begin. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329.md?page=421) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329.md?page=423)