After US District Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday rejected Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the charges in his classified documents case under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), many legal experts agreed her ruling is in favor of special counsel Jack Smith — but not necessarily good news for him.
Some legal experts believe Cannon was essentially forced to rule against the former president in the matter, as the special counsel "could potentially appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly petitioned to have her removed from the case entirely."
Still, there's a "dilemma" facing Smith, according to Former Acting Solicitor General of the United States Neal Katyal, who explained why on the latest episode of MSNBC's All In With Chris Hayes.
READ MORE: 'Cannon caves': Legal experts say Judge Cannon’s latest ruling is 'a big loss for Trump'
MSNBC's Jordin Rubin noted in an April 3 article:
As a refresher, Cannon asked the parties to file proposed jury instructions, regarding the federal charges alleging that Trump illegally retained national defense information. In doing so, she told them to consider two 'scenarios,' both of which lend credence to the notion that the Presidential Records Act applies in this case. The problem is that the PRA is irrelevant to these criminal charges. So injecting the issue into the trial could lead the jury to think that Trump could do whatever he wanted with classified documents, which would obviously go against the criminal law that says otherwise.
"I've been trying to understand this, and I feel like I'm 85% of the way there, but I don't get the jury instruction part," Hayes told Katyal. "Where does the jury instruction thing come from? That seems early anyway. If [Trump lawyers are] filing to say, 'You should dismiss this case because the Presidential Records Act doesn't allow the case to be brought,' and she says, 'No,' why does this jury instruction issue hang over all of this?" the MSNBC host asked.
"Ordinarily, Chris, you would have jury instructions decided at the charging conference much later," Katyal replied. "What happened here is that Judge Cannon issued kind of bonkers two different potential jury instructions and said to the parties, 'Hey, tell me what you think of them.' Both of them were complete misstatements of the law. I mean, just Black letter, flat misstatements of the law, and that's what Jack Smith's filing over the weekend said. Which was, 'it can't possibly be, as you were saying, this garbage defense — the Presidential Records Act has anything to do with this — and he asked for her to rule and rule it out of bounds."
The Georgetown University law professor continued, "Now normally, judges don't have to do that before the trial begins. That's to be sure. But in a circumstance like this, in which the drug the judge has consistently flirted with this defense, you've got to be worried if you're Jack Smith. And that's why his filing over the weekend said, 'Look, if you can't give me a straight answer, I may need to go to the court of appeals on what's called technically a writ of mandamus, but I might have to go and get clarity, and the reason for it is the double jeopardy provisions would then apply."
READ MORE: Jack Smith’s 'blistering' response to Judge Cannon could 'remove her from the case': experts
A writ of mandamus, according to Cornell Law School%20mandamus%20is,correct%20an%20abuse%20of%20discretion.), "is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion."
Kaytal added, "So basically, Judge Cannon could say during the trial, 'Oh, I think the PRA might apply, let in some evidence or the like,' and even if she's 100% wrong — as she is, as every legal scholar, everyone who has a law degree, I think, would agree that the Presidential Records Act has nothing to do with it — even if the court of appeals of the Presidential Records Act had nothing to do with it, once that trial has begun, you can't undo whatever the jury does in that room because there is the double jeopardy protection and Trump would go free. And so that's what the dilemma is for Jack Smith tonight."
The former acting solicitor general of the United States emphasized, "Yes, he won this formally. But I guarantee you there's no one celebrating in the special counsel's office tonight."
Watch the video below or at this link.
READ MORE: 'Fundamentally unsound': Legal expert dismantles Judge Cannon’s 'nonsensical' arguments in docs case
Why nobody’s 'celebrating' Jack Smith’s office after court win: legal expert youtu.be
