Ex-prosecutor says Cannon's latest move is 'contrary to what the law directs judges to do'

Judge Aileen Cannon just did something "contrary to what the law directs judges to do," a former federal prosecutor said on Sunday.

Ex-prosecutor Joyce Vance, a legal analyst who frequently appears on MSNBC, over the weekend highlighted recent actions by Cannon, who is overseeing Donald Trump's criminal documents case out of Florida. Cannon has been accused of slow-walking the case, and her earlier decisions in the investigation phase of the case were reversed on appeal.

Vance wrote for her Civil Discourse blog on Substack that there "was little doubt before last week that federal Judge Aileen Cannon was determined to delay Trump’s criminal case in front of her—the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case—until after the election."

Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.

ALSO READ: 'Most transparent president' Trump won't meet financial transparency deadline. Again.

"Now, there is none," the legal expert added.

Vance went on to describe how, recently, Cannon refused to set a new trial date, citing a number of motions on which she has yet to rule. Some have said this could result in Special Counsel Jack Smith getting the opportunity to replace the judge.

Vance highlighted the law itself, arguing that judges are required to set a trial date.

"This case could and should have been ready for trial in December or January if she had been working on the motions and realistic deadlines all along," she wrote. "Judge Cannon’s action here bears a striking similarity to what Trump asked her to do back in July of 2023, when he and co-defendant Walt Nauta filed a joint motion asking her to 'postpone initial consideration of any rescheduled trial date until after substantive motions have been presented and adjudicated.' She didn’t then; she scheduled the May trial date. But now, she has given Trump what he wanted all along, and it’s contrary to what the law directs judges to do."

Vance goes on to quote The Speedy Trial Act, which says, “In any case involving a defendant charged with an offense, the appropriate judicial officer, at the earliest practicable time, shall, after consultation with the counsel for the defendant and the attorney for the Government, set the case for trial on a day certain, or list it for trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at a place within the judicial district, so as to assure a speedy trial.”

"Refusing to set a trial date is not what the rules authorize federal judges to do; in fact, the rules direct judges to set a trial date at the beginning of the case, before all of the motions are even filed," she wrote. "Here, we have a Judge who won’t set a trial date because of eight motions that are still pending on her docket because she has refrained from deciding them."

Read the post here.

Recommended Links: