Obviously about the Aileen Cannon case in Florida, but I’m interested in knowing generally whether a biased judge could manipulate events in her courtroom sufficiently to take a very strong case by the prosecution into a “Not Guilty” verdict, and whether she could do it in such a way that would stand up on appeal.
Let’s say that this hypothetical judge is a staunch Democrat, and personally sympathetic to the defendant, is convinced that he is a good man being persecuted by a prosecution team that hates his politics, and they would have never obtained the powerful evidence they have against him if another judge, also a Republican, hadn’t signed off on the search warrants that led to the evidence. It was perfectly legal, the search, mind you, but this judge just resents the other judge and the prosecutor for their zeal and their outrage at the defendant. Could she do things that would undermine their very strong case against him and manipulate the jury in a way that would withstand appeal into delivering a “not guilty” verdict? If you’re a lawyer, have you ever seen anything like this sort of judicial bias in a case?
I think that all they have to do is to accept a defense motion to throw out the case. Once the trial has begun, double jeopardy would prevent a retrial.
Another thing they can do is disallow all the prosecution evidence. For whatever reason. It has even suggested that the louche cannon is aiming for a Supreme Court appointment is Trump is acquitted and wins the election.
If a judge dismisses a case with prejudice then it’s over. The judge is supposed to have some reason for dismissing the case, perhaps if it was done corruptly then the decision can be overturned.
I’m quite sure this is appealable. The defendant won’t be tried again if the court of appeal reinstates the conviction. I don’t have time to look it up right now, but I’m pretty sure.
I wonder how often there are subtle hints judges give jurors that aren’t close to appealable. I’m thinking the answer to that is yes – but then the question is, do jurors pay that much attention to the a borderline skeptical look or voice inflection on the part of the judge?
Here’s a paragraph suggesting that jurors may not be overly guided by the judge’s instructions:
From the one time I was on a civil case jury, I would say jurors failing to focus on every bit of the instructions is much more likely than conscious jury nullification. My fellow jurors seemed to be wanting something closer to clear and convincing evidence the defendant was at fault, not just 51 percent – but we never said that to each other, let alone tied it to instructions. Instead we talked about the evidence and convinced each other there was not enough.
HOWEVER – There is a big literature on jury behavior, and you probably can find multiple good law review articles claiming that judges can, or can’t, manipulate juries, if you search hard enough.
I wonder if Judge Cannon is too inexperienced to successful engage in subtle jury manipulation.
A judge can affect the outcome of a case anytime a ruling on the law is needed. Include or exclude evidence, ruling on admissible testimony, objections, etc; all these things can impact the course of a trial.
Slate discusses the possibilities. It is not heartening.
Tossing the whole case can be appealed and overturned. But she can help rig the jury, exclude evidence, disqualify witnesses, sustain any of the defense’s objections, overrule any of the prosecution’s objections, direct a verdict, declare a mistrial at any point, and extend deadlines.
The prosecution can ask her to be removed from the case and no doubt they are writing up the briefs now.
If the judge, subtly or unsubtly steers the jury to acquit the defendant, there is no appeal. The government cannot appeal an acquittal.
Alternatively, at the close of the government’s case, the defense can move for a judgement of acquittal, and the judge can grant it, based on a conclusion that the government put on insufficient evidence to convict. (So the defendant is acquitted without the case ever going to the jury.) That decision is also not appealable by the government.
If the government claims that the judge was working to make sure the trial ended in acquital, they can argue that no jeopardy attached. Fraud and/or collusion can prevent jeopardy from attaching even if a trial is held.
No, not in the US. That would be double jeopardy. The judge can simply rule that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain a conviction and that is the end of the story. In Canada a not guilty verdict can be appealed. One notorious case involved an abortion doctor, Henry Morgenthaler. The jury acquitted and the appeal judge had erred by allowing testimony about medical judgment (IIRC) and said that without that, the jury would certainly have convicted and reversed the decision. He spent a significant time in prison for that guilty verdict put in by the appeal judge until that was reversed on higher appeal. A new trial was ordered that resulted in a hung jury and another couple trials had the same result and the crown simply gave up. This case resulted in making abortion legal eventually.
So Aileen Cannon can simply throw the case out, logic be damned, for a supposed lack of evidence, and that’s it? Seems to me, she can’t be impeached (unless the Senate gets 67 Democrats–not holding my breath) and gets to enjoy her lifetime appointment. The only downside is that liberals will hate her, which they do already. And the upside is she gets to be a MAGA-hero, with all sorts of cushy perks, like vacationing with billionaires and maybe an actual SC appointment the next time we have a GOP POTUS and a GOP Senate. Not that much of a downside for her, is there?
So, maybe I’m being dense, but isn’t a case only double jeopardy if it actually went all the way to trial AND the jury gave a verdict of not-guilty, and the prosecution tries to do it again? In other words, if a judge tosses out the case by dismissing it BEFORE it’s gone to trial, cross-examination, presentation of evidence, and a verdict, then it can definitely be brought up by the prosecution again?
This is why the OP asked for responses from lawyers, or at least people who know the law. I suspect that it may be possible, technically, for Cannon to toss the case out in a way that’s not subject to appeal, with the only real cost a loss of her reputation among her fellow jurists, but I’d like a lawyer to assure me that can’t happen.
“Dismiss the charges: The judge could dismiss the charges right off the bat. No trial or anything. Done. However, if that were to happen, the DoJ could seek another trial with another judge and that wouldn’t count as double jeopardy in the sense of the Fifth Amendment. That only kicks in after a trial has begun. Cannon surely knows this and is unlikely to go this route although she could do it to impress Trump and use it as a kind of back-door recusal and get brownie points at the same time.”
Make sure to read the whole paragraph; it is not too clearly expressed. But what it says is she could dismiss the charges. If done before the trial begins, they could retry hopefully getting a different judge. But once the trial begins, there can be no retrial.
Now I am not a lawyer but when I was growing up, my understanding was a judge could direct a verdict of acquittal and the jury would have to go along. Of course, that was in PA and might not be universal.
They can’t just make stuff up though. It would likely be very very hard to get evidence of, and very hard to prove.
Jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn in, or when the first witness is sworn in, in a bench trial. But certain things can result in a permissible do-over. Mostly they are driven by a defendant’s request – like if the defendant appeals a guilty verdict, one of the possible remedies is a retrial.
But, if a judge grants a judgment of acquittal that should not have been granted, there is typically no right to appeal and no remedy for the prosecution.
So, not to repeat myself (I hope), a MAGA-mad judge could simply acquit Trump for no reason whatsoever (she would make up some legalistic crap, of course) with no penalty. She couldn’t be removed except by impeachment (from a Senate now composed of at least 40 pro-MAGA votes), and she would be disapproved of, generally, and disrespected by her peers, some of whom are also MAGAs anyway who would applaud her.
If I were a MAGA, and convinced that Trump is a great man being persecuted by his wrongheaded political foes, who was going to be denied his rightful place in the White House if I don’t act, what would be keeping me from declaring him “Not guilty” on all counts as soon as the jury was sworn in? My conscience? My ethics?
That’s absolutely true, it would require an appelate court to make the determination that the lower judge colluded or on her own was determined to force an acquital. It’s a high bar, for sure, but one that has been successfully argued in the past.
So, the scenario I’m familiar with would take a little bit longer. In a criminal case, the prosecution presents its case first, because it has the burden of proof. When the prosecution concludes its initial presentation, and before the defense begins presenting the defense case, the defendant makes a motion that has different names in different jurisdictions. It may be called a motion for directed verdict. Here it’s called a motion for judgment of acquittal. The point of it is to argue that the prosecution failed to carry its burden as to one or more required elements of the crime.
That would be the opportunity to tank the case, if there’s any remotely plausible argument.