Judge Aileen Cannon is facing increasing scrutiny over her handling of the high-profile case involving former President Donald Trump and his alleged mishandling of classified documents. Critics argue that Cannon, a Trump appointee, is intentionally delaying the case, which could potentially extend beyond the November election. This has raised concerns about her competency and impartiality, with some suggesting that her actions may be influenced by her political affiliations.
Special counsel Jack Smith has been particularly vocal in his criticism of Cannon’s approach. He recently responded sharply to a request by Cannon for dueling jury instructions from the prosecution and defense, connected to the defense’s Presidential Records Act (PRA) argument. Smith argued that the defense’s interpretation of the PRA, which allows a former president to designate presidential documents as personal, is “fundamentally flawed” and outright wrong. He even signaled his intent to appeal to the 11th Circuit if Cannon entertained Trump’s PRA argument via jury instructions, a move that would likely delay the trial further.
Cannon’s handling of the case has been marked by a series of delays and unresolved issues. The trial, initially scheduled for May 20, is unlikely to proceed as planned due to these delays. Since a hearing on the trial schedule last month, Cannon has provided no additional indication of when the trial might start, despite Smith’s repeated calls for an earlier timeline. If Trump is elected president and the trial is still pending, he is expected to order the Justice Department to drop the charges.
On Monday, Cannon scheduled a non-evidentiary hearing for April 19 to address three motions filed by co-defendants. However, Trump is expected to be on trial in New York at that time, adding another layer of complexity to the proceedings. Cannon’s recent decisions have also raised eyebrows, including her denial of another Trump motion to dismiss the case based on the PRA. She called Smith’s request on jury instructions “unprecedented and unjust,” and her order left open the possibility that she might acquit Trump by declaring that the government had failed to prove its case.
Legal experts have questioned Cannon’s qualifications to oversee such a complex and high-stakes case. Tyler Cobb, a former member of Trump’s administration’s legal team, told CNN that Cannon’s incompetence is so gross that it creates the perception of partiality. Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge from Massachusetts, suggested that the Justice Department should move to disqualify her, although this would likely cause further delays.
Cannon, who was appointed to the federal bench by Trump during his final months as president, has a relatively short tenure as a judge. Before her appointment, she worked as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida and was a member of the conservative Federalist Society. Her limited experience includes presiding over only four criminal trials as a federal judge.
In 2022, Cannon accepted Trump’s bid for a special master to review evidence seized by the FBI, a move criticized by legal experts as an extraordinary overreach. A federal appeals court ultimately halted the special master appointment, stating that they chose to apply their usual test rather than carve out an unprecedented exception for former presidents.
Cannon’s approach to the Trump case has been described as detail-obsessed to the point of being tedious, a trait that has been exploited by Trump’s defense team to delay the case. Her system for redacting public filings has exacerbated a backlog of unresolved issues, and she has yet to decide foundational questions that will determine whether the case will go to trial. Marginal issues continue to clutter her docket, including a longshot motion to invalidate Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel.
Attorneys who have practiced before Cannon describe her as extremely diligent and well-prepared but also prone to letting irrelevant legal questions distract from core issues. Her zero-tolerance approach to technical defects in filings and struggle with docket management have allowed pretrial disputes to go unresolved for months. Some attorneys believe her background in appellate work has led her to focus on abstract, academic questions at the expense of the on-the-fly decision-making required by trial judges.
Cannon’s intense scrutiny extends to whether attorneys are following granular procedural rules about how to file submissions to her court. Last month, she rebuffed a gag order request from Smith after Trump falsely claimed the FBI had a plan to assassinate him during the Mar-a-Lago search. She did so because prosecutors had run afoul of local rules requiring them to give the opposing side ample time to consult on the request. On other occasions, she has rejected routine filings for minor technicalities.
As Cannon slowly works through the backlog of issues, special counsel prosecutors are learning firsthand the challenges of dealing with her meticulous approach. Trump’s attorneys have also faced scrutiny from Cannon, though far less frequently than the special counsel. Defense attorneys describe her as a judge who gives minimal deference to defendants and as a “notoriously” tough sentencer, making her leniency towards Trump’s team in the pretrial phase all the more striking.
While some attorneys praise Cannon for her thoroughness and research, others criticize her for being indecisive and overwhelmed by the process. Her fixation on procedural technicalities has led cases to get bogged down in minutiae, delaying the resolution of major pretrial motions in the Trump case. As she navigates this high-profile case, Cannon must also handle the other cases in her Fort Pierce division, adding to the complexity of her judicial responsibilities.
Source: CNN, Axios
