I think each courthouse has a culture about that sort of thing. I recall a trial with a very experienced local judge. After every break he came back late, apologizing and explaining he was fielding questions from one or another of our newer judges. In a another (unrelated) case, a judge told me he had been speaking to another judge about our case. Obviously, I have no insight into the SDFL.
For better or for worse, unsure judges typically side with the prosecution, so that would be the expected default, especially if she’s a former AUSA. They typically trust the federal prosecutors to be professional and not make unreasonable requests. They are skeptical of the defense attorneys, whose job it is to try any tractic that might have a chance.
Agreed. At least not taking the advice. She could keep her head down, make routine rulings, and get this thing to trial without controversy. For whatever reason, she isn’t taking that course.
That is my impression as well. Most courts have a senior/chief judge who is not technically the “boss” of the other judges, but can exert varying levels of influence/guidance. And different courts vary WRT informal meetings among judges.
Of course that is limited by a particular judge’s willingness to cooperate and learn from the experience of their colleagues - something Loose Cannon seems loathe to do.
I’m only an Administrative Law Judge, but we have monthly ALJ meetings with our Hearing Office Chief ALJ. And whenever I’m confronted by something I have no idea about, my FIRST move is to ask a colleague I trust and respect if they have ever encountered anything similar. Of course, I am concerned with conducting myself in a professional and ethical manner consistent with applicable law (not to mention avoiding doing anything too ridiculously unnecessarily stupid and being remanded/overturned on review) - which may not be the case with Loose Cannon.
I imagine this is true in every line of work. Even when the newbie is, on paper, fully qualified, trained, and competent, they’re well-advised to seek the advice of a more experienced colleague when something unusual comes up, even if that colleague doesn’t have any official superiority. Certainly it’s true of teachers (our schedules often even have time officially set aside for this sort of peer consultation).
Not sure, exactly. I think most. I’ll add to my post above, you should not use a grand jury to continue to investigate charges you already brought. That is improper and also what Judge Cannon is (out of nowhere) looking at. So I now think two related things are going on: (1) Can you go from DC grand jury to Florida grand jury; (2) Can you continue using any grand jury to investigate crimes already charged.
The short answer is, to me: For (1) it seems clear now this is all Florida and maybe should have started there, but that’s in hindsight. Also this case is not brought by a typical US attorney, it’s a special counsel which allows for more wiggle room.
For (2) it appears Trump and others continued to commit crimes (obstruction) after the initial evidence presented to grand jury/charges returned which is new crimes - I’m less clear about bringing the additional retention charge against Trump (recently charging the Iran document which Trump returned in Jan 2022).
I’ll wait for DOJ’s response since there could be a million reasons, but I suspect it would be normal/special prosecutor reasons.
I would agree with this. Also, Venue can be proper in multiple places for the same facts.
I’ll add to what Aspenglow said and say it’s also common because you don’t know where the facts will lead you and what charges the facts will prove when you start out, and if people keep lying or are less than forthcoming at the start, you’ll discover new information - like saying one thing to the FBI, and then changing your story for the grand jury (lying).
Andrew Weissmann, former federal prosecutor, talks with Alex Wagner about the remarkably ill-informed challenge by Judge Aileen Cannon of Justice Department procedure in the Donald Trump classified documents case, and its curious similarity to an identical argument made by a former Trump attorney on Fox News the previous day.
It reminds me of the “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth”. They positioned themselves as “experts” who “analyzed” the events of 9/11 and concluded that it was all a conspiracy. But, oddly enough, pretty much all* of their arguments were nothing more than repetitions of stuff non-professional conspiracy theorists had said months or years earlier. Odd, that, that the laymen got everything right, with no training at all…
*I think they corrected one minor defect in how people described the video of one collapse. A difference so minor that it made no difference to the general issues of 9/11.
Ok, the full paragraph that Prosrustus finds bizarre is
Waltine Nauta shall file a response to the Motion for a Garcia hearing [ECF No. 97] on or before August 17, 2023. Among other topics as raised in the Motion, the response shall address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district. The Special Counsel shall respond to that discussion in a Reply in Support of the Motion [ECF No. 97], due on or before August 22, 2023. The remaining Defendants may, but are not required to, file briefs of their own related to the grand jury issue referenced herein, but any such briefs are due by August 17, 2023, and may be submitted in combined or individual fashion.
Now, it seems to me the Judge is requesting Nauta (or, I suppose , his council) to address what Cannon has somehow concluded the Special Council has done (or is doing), that is “using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate…”, or am I missing something?
How would Nauta know? If it is assumed to be Nauta’s council’s responsibility to know the propriety of such a use, shouldn’t the Judge know as well?
Or, is this just a way to get the Defense to bring the issue to the Court’s attention so that it can be addressed? If this is the reason, hasn’t Cannon already brought it up by making the request? Why doesn’t she just ask Jack Smith directly?
You’re correct. It’s the full sentence, though:…address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or [using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding] to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district.
They have all the GJ transcripts, etc.
Also, Nauta was charged with new crimes in the July 2023 superseding indictment. Finally, Nauta’s lawyer represents many witnesses. His lawyer would be present during the out-of-district GJ proceedings. I’m sure there are other ways.
I don’t think the Judge would “know”. It’s not her job to find that stuff out. Rather, the Judge is
presented issues by the parties, and the Judge rules on those issues. There are a couple things a Judge can do on her own (sua sponte), but venue is not one of them.
I’m pretty sure, but open to correction, that the Defendant has to file a 12b6 motion to get the case dismissed for improper venue/grand jury stuff - and the Judge can’t rule on venue on her own. So yea, it really does sorta kinda feel like the Judge is giving a wink to Defense to go file that type of motion re: this issue. That’s why everyone felt it odd the Judge would bring this up without anyone asking her to. I think we are unable to see some filings that would shed light on this though, though.
trump would like the scif restored to mar a lago. the attorneys are trying to say that it would be difficult for trump to keep going to an outside scif to discuss his defence. they do state that no document would be taken there.
Let’s see if Cannon figures out she has no authority to order any such thing. Personally, I hope she doesn’t, because it just adds to the basis for her disqualification from hearing this case.
Your honor - the person accused of mishandling classified documents would like to continue discussing them at home - where (a) he has no authority to do so and (b) is where he is accused of discussing them already (when he had no authority to do so).
Its just so difficult on the accused to have to follow the rules - too many rules - and he wants to do it his way.