Can someone with a better understanding of the law/inner workings of the courts explain whether this is reasonable or not?
Cannon chided prosecutors in her order denying their request, saying they didn’t give defense lawyers adequate time to discuss the matter before it was filed Friday evening. The judge warned prosecutors that failing to comply with court requirements in the future may lead to sanctions. She denied the request without prejudice, meaning prosecutors could file it again.
Can someone with a better understanding of the law/inner workings of the courts explain whether this is reasonable or not?
Disclaimer: This is what i've pieced together, I could very well be wrong about absolutely everything here. So while I am far from a professional, i've spoken about this case with several...
Disclaimer: This is what i've pieced together, I could very well be wrong about absolutely everything here.
So while I am far from a professional, i've spoken about this case with several professionals, and even there it's very very contentious.
There's absolutely lawyers who will swear up and down that everything Cannon has done is unfair and solely in service to helping Trump. There are others who claim she's done nothing wrong.
The possibly sensible middle ground seems to be that she's probably biased, but that doesn't change the fact that the defense really does have some legitimate arguments. I believe one of the early statements was something along the lines of "The state has had years to prepare its case, the defense will require the same", and that's usually not an unreasonable request. You can't just drop a case on someone's head and say "go now".
This is of course exacerbated by the fact that we have an election coming up that it will weigh on, but most of the lawyers i've talked to never thought any of the Trump cases would be anywhere close to decided before the election because they really do have grounds to say that's too soon. You then get the media ignorantly signal boosting bad expectations and everyone is pissed.
So in regards to this specific quote, it depends? That is absolutely a legit reason to bounce a request, and she denied without prejudice so it's not like she did trump a solid and knocked this off the table, but the actual details are going to matter a ton, and the article doesn't seem to provide enough of them to know. I'm sure there's 1000 opinions from various lawyers across the country, but of course sifting through them for unbiased takes is also very difficult.
This mostly makes sense...I'm very curious about why "don't endanger people" is something that requires the defense to review...presumably because it is written in legalese and they need an...
This mostly makes sense...I'm very curious about why "don't endanger people" is something that requires the defense to review...presumably because it is written in legalese and they need an opportunity to make sure it doesn't say "Trump can't speak at all, and if he says anything about anything, the prosecution will be given ownership of his soul." But so many things get quickly approved in court that it seems like this could be done quickly, too. Maybe all those other quick things are just boilerplate and are only quick because they've been done a million times before?
This is a case brought against a former president who may have violated national security. NOTHING is going to be done quickly. Especially something that could later be claimed to be showing...
This is a case brought against a former president who may have violated national security.
NOTHING is going to be done quickly. Especially something that could later be claimed to be showing favoritism or give room for appeal.
...so i wonder: if trump were to waive his right to a jury trial, and cannon were to find him not guilty, would the prosecution be entitled to appeal any irregular processes or would that...
...so i wonder: if trump were to waive his right to a jury trial, and cannon were to find him not guilty, would the prosecution be entitled to appeal any irregular processes or would that constitute double jeopardy?..
My totally unqualified perspective is that Trump would never wave his right to a jury trial before the election b/c this case is free press and plays well with his base. I'd love to see Biden...
My totally unqualified perspective is that Trump would never wave his right to a jury trial before the election b/c this case is free press and plays well with his base. I'd love to see Biden offer Trump pardons across the board for any federal stuff. Embiggens Biden, minimizes Trump, and then when Trump then doesn't accept the pardon, it gives DNC additional talking points. Probably Biden won't - it wouldn't play well with a very angry chunk of his base...
Can someone with a better understanding of the law/inner workings of the courts explain whether this is reasonable or not?
Disclaimer: This is what i've pieced together, I could very well be wrong about absolutely everything here.
So while I am far from a professional, i've spoken about this case with several professionals, and even there it's very very contentious.
There's absolutely lawyers who will swear up and down that everything Cannon has done is unfair and solely in service to helping Trump. There are others who claim she's done nothing wrong.
The possibly sensible middle ground seems to be that she's probably biased, but that doesn't change the fact that the defense really does have some legitimate arguments. I believe one of the early statements was something along the lines of "The state has had years to prepare its case, the defense will require the same", and that's usually not an unreasonable request. You can't just drop a case on someone's head and say "go now".
This is of course exacerbated by the fact that we have an election coming up that it will weigh on, but most of the lawyers i've talked to never thought any of the Trump cases would be anywhere close to decided before the election because they really do have grounds to say that's too soon. You then get the media ignorantly signal boosting bad expectations and everyone is pissed.
So in regards to this specific quote, it depends? That is absolutely a legit reason to bounce a request, and she denied without prejudice so it's not like she did trump a solid and knocked this off the table, but the actual details are going to matter a ton, and the article doesn't seem to provide enough of them to know. I'm sure there's 1000 opinions from various lawyers across the country, but of course sifting through them for unbiased takes is also very difficult.
This mostly makes sense...I'm very curious about why "don't endanger people" is something that requires the defense to review...presumably because it is written in legalese and they need an opportunity to make sure it doesn't say "Trump can't speak at all, and if he says anything about anything, the prosecution will be given ownership of his soul." But so many things get quickly approved in court that it seems like this could be done quickly, too. Maybe all those other quick things are just boilerplate and are only quick because they've been done a million times before?
This is a case brought against a former president who may have violated national security.
NOTHING is going to be done quickly. Especially something that could later be claimed to be showing favoritism or give room for appeal.
...so i wonder: if trump were to waive his right to a jury trial, and cannon were to find him not guilty, would the prosecution be entitled to appeal any irregular processes or would that constitute double jeopardy?..
My totally unqualified perspective is that Trump would never wave his right to a jury trial before the election b/c this case is free press and plays well with his base. I'd love to see Biden offer Trump pardons across the board for any federal stuff. Embiggens Biden, minimizes Trump, and then when Trump then doesn't accept the pardon, it gives DNC additional talking points. Probably Biden won't - it wouldn't play well with a very angry chunk of his base...