I think we’ve lost the thread here on what’s going on in Aileen Cannon’s mind. As I understand it, the judge in this case has the ability to issue a directed verdict of “Not Guilty”, notwithstanding the jury’s decision of “Guilty”, that is not subject to appeal. What folks here, and on TV, have been saying is that such a blatant move will ruin her reputation in the judicial world, and she cannot live with the ignominy and shame that will follow her all her life.
But what if (as I believe) she is a True Believer? What if, for her, there is no shame attached is helping Donald Trump get past these unjust accusations that the corrupt and biased Marxist government is charging him with for purely political reasons?
Wouldn’t she then be doing a good thing in issuing a directed verdict in Trump’s favor? Wouldn’t she then be a hero to millions of Trump supporters? Doesn’t this move simply make sense from the perspective of a deluded MAGAnut, which I think she just might be?
Or is there something stopping her from directing an unappealable directed verdict of Not Guilty (after allowing the case to drag on and on for months or even years, possibly until he or another Republican with pardoning powers is elected, which would obviate the need for a directed verdict in the first place)?
Some further clarifications: I think it would be prudent of her (so as to avoid mandamus, and getting the case removed from her docket) to make fair, and even generous, rulings in favor of the government, except to delay the actual trial as much as she reasonably can, allowing all sorts of preliminary motions the defense makes that take up weeks but are relatively normal motions for a defense to make. Her entire endgame would be to issue a directed verdict at the last moment, and exult for the rest of her natural verdict in the libs’ hatred and the MAGAworld’s adoration.
And if there is some way that a directed verdict is appealable (I have heard that there is not, but I may have heard wrong), she can certainly give a sentence to Donald Trump that is ridiculously below the sentencing guidelines, even down to a very expansive definition of “house arrest” that virtually sets him free.
A directed verdict would be a helluva thing since:
A directed verdict is a ruling entered by a trial judge after determining that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonablejury to reach a different conclusion. - SOURCE
Reading the indictment and considering the care the prosecutors went to on this one because of who it is it would seem unthinkable for a judge to declare Trump the winner because there is no evidence. Hell, there is smoking gun evidence (recordings of Trump on the phone committing the crime…unless she rules that as inadmissible).
I’d still be interested in learning whether a directed verdict is appealable. I have heard it is final and not subject to appeal, but maybe I heard wrong.
Again, if it is, then her endgame changes to giving Trump a ludicrously gentle sentence, which essentially combines suspending his sentence with a very generous interpretation of house arrest. Can anything be done if the jury finds him guilty of numerous counts of espionage and she sentences him to time served, twenty years suspended, and restriction to Mar-a-Lago, Bedminster, Doral, Trump Tower, and has him monitored by taking him at his word that he’s not spending gross amounts of time anywhere else?
Looks like it depends on the kind of directed verdict:
Once acquitted, a defendant may not be retried for the same offense: “A verdict of acquittal, although not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.” Acquittal by directed verdict is also final and cannot be appealed by the prosecution. An acquittal in a trial by judge (bench trial) is also generally not appealable by the prosecution. A trial judge may normally enter an acquittal if he deems the evidence insufficient for conviction. If the judge makes this ruling before the jury reaches its verdict, the judge’s determination is final. If, however, the judge overrules a conviction by the jury, the prosecution may appeal to have the conviction reinstated. Although a judge may overrule a guilty verdict by a jury, a judge does not have the same power to overrule a not guilty verdict.
Okay, so she sends the jury out to deliberate but immediately issues a “Not Guilty” directed verdict. As I read it, Trump walks free and no appeal is possible.
MAGAworld goes wild with joy, and all of the rest of us get an embolism.
I am not a lawyer, but, yes, that would be my read of the Wiki article. I don’t think she has any downside either, but we did see that normal people actually have a hard time doing totally amoral things. For example, during the last election, most election-denier Republicans who lost their position didn’t actually challenge the results when they clearly lost.
Trump is fairly unique in his ability to just do whatever is best for him, and say whatever he needs to, regardless of the truth of his statements, in order to get some benefit. Folks who aren’t sociopathic narcissists don’t do that as easily.
I’m not saying Aileen won’t do something like that, but I’m not as pessimistic as most people here. She probably has some sort of moral center and some historical sense and wouldn’t want to go down in history as the worst federal judge of all time, the one that destroyed our legal system.
Have you heard some of these MAGAnuts declaring that we have already lost our country and must wage war to get it back? Have you heard Trump on the subject?
If I were a complete MAGAnut, setting Trump free would be the highest honor imaginable. And she may well be a complete MAGAnut.
It’s an extraordinarily high bar to overturn a final verdict of “not guilty,” whether reached by a jury or through a directed verdict. And rightfully so. In order to avoid double jeopardy concerns, the prosecution would have to show that the defendant was never in “jeopardy” to begin with – i.e. the original trial was so defective that there was never any possibility that the defendant wouldn’t be found not guilty. The traditional example is a bribed judge or jury.
So you would need proof that Cannon never had any intention but to issue a directed verdict of not guilty. Aside of her cackling as she hands down the verdict and giving a villain speech that “this was my plan all along!!” I don’t know how you’d prove that.
I could write her a beautiful speech, all about how surprised she had just recently found herself considering this step, how difficult a decision this was for her to make, but how necessary for justice and for the country that she loves and she knows the dear leader loves etc. I’ll make you cry with sympathy for this brave jurist taking on the hatred of many for the sake of justice and national peace etc.
Aileen Cannon will preside over the fairest, most judicial trial she knows how, showing Smith’s team deference when required to and sometimes when it isn’t required. They will see no reason to appeal any of his rulings. She will allow a few jurors who may (or may not) favor Trump politically. She will delay the trial for frequent motions, but nothing out of line.
She will NOT give a directed verdict when all the evidence is in. She will send the jury off to deliberate, having given fair and respectable jury instructions.
BUT she will hope that the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict and that she can declare a hung jury, sometime in late 2024 at the earliest.
If the jury does return a GUILTY verdict, though, here’s what she will do:
she will deliver a heartful, regretful, but firm sentence of probationary jail time. In other words, no punishment at all. “This brave, decent, deeply regretful man, the greatest President the world has ever known, has suffered enough, so I cannot punish them any more than he has already been punished by the unjust humiliation of this politically motivated process.”
I believe this no-punishment is not subject to any appeal or review. Trump is free to denounce the jury as a demented Trump-hating crew of Democrats brainwashed by an evil Jack Smith, and Aileen Cannon is a heroic figure who deserves a seat on the Supreme Court.
Be careful whenever reviewing legal rules that you are distinguishing between civil rules (which you’ve cited) and criminal rules, which apply to donald.
Here’s the applicable rule in its entirety. Note the bolded parts. I haven’t dived into any research, but it sure sounds like a judicial decision that finds donald not guilty is subject to appellate review.
I did some searching and apparently the crimes in the indictment do not carry any mandatory minimum sentences. So in theory, it would be legal for it to be a slap of the wrist, or really nothing.
That seems a bit scary. But, while a “not guilty” verdict can’t be appealed by the prosecution, a sentence can be appealed. If he’s found guilty of all charges by the jury and the judge decides that he is fined $100 as the sentence, that can be appealed.
Note that this isn’t the same as a directed verdict.
Although prosecutors are not able to appeal a not guilty verdict, they are able to appeal when a judge hands down a criminal sentence that they do not believe meets the legal standards for what the law should impose for your particular conviction.
At the federal level, there are federal sentencing guidelines which are instituted for the very purpose of preventing judges from handing down overly lenient sentences. These guidelines are quite complex in nature, and, among other things, give judges the ability to consider facts outside of the actual conviction in sentencing a defendant.
Thus, a federal prosecutor might seek to appeal for a longer sentence if he or she believes the trial court judge failed to follow the federal sentencing guidelines or some other applicable sentencing rule.
And it has been ruled that appealing a sentence for being too light is not considered double jeopardy.
Cannon has gone under the sentencing guidelines before, and the prosecution didn’t appeal:
However, the defendant still got prison time. I’m guessing that if the guidelines call for years in prison, and the judge fines you $100, there will be an appeal.
As for any kind of acquittal, appealing that seems like too much of a an Inspector Javert move to actually happen here. Then, I’m still guessing.
And as for the thread title question, the nativist mood will eventually recede, and she’s only 42. She’s smart enough to know that the wheel turns, and she should only go so far in putting her finger on the result.
Question: At the arraignment, Trump asked for a jury trial. Sounds like a bad move if Cannon stays on the case. Can they change it?
Of course. I gather that it’s rare for the prosecution to appeal, it would have to be pretty egregious. Hence why I used the example of a $100 fine, that would be pretty egregious.
If she set the sentence as something lower than most people would expect, and many are unhappy with, as long as it’s not something ridiculously low, my prediction is that the prosecution would just move their attention to the next indictment.
But just to clarify, because this thread is about the downside of a directed verdict, I believe that the sentencing will be up to her judgement. I don’t think that the jury would be asked to make a decision in the sentencing phase.
I feel like we’re kind of past the topic of the directed verdict.
Nitpick on the $100 fine: Any federal defendant found guilty of a felony is required to pay a mandatory $100 fine for each count on which s/he is found guilty. That’s mandatory, not discretionary, and is in addition to any monetary penalty handed out.
And for what it’s worth, going below the sentencing guidelines is called a “downward departure”. Defendants routinely ask for them before sentencing, and there is a Supreme Court case (Booker) which stands for the proposition that the sentencing guidelines are only advisory (since they don’t want judges to just be robots at sentencing).
But, if the judge goes below the guidelines, they will have to give reasons to survive appellate review (since the goal of the guidelines is to have consistent sentencing for those who commit the same crimes).
Something not yet mentioned in this thread is “jury nullification”. Which is a topic near and dear to the hearts of almost all Libertarians and many on the Right.
Legal scholars differ a bit on whether it really was/is a legit feature of the common law. But they also admit that due to juror secrecy it is a practical reality that is very difficult for the rest of the justice system to overcome.