The judge overseeing the Trump classified-documents trial, Aileen Cannon, has come under criticism for her instructions to both sides regarding potential jury instructions.
Judge Cannon has requested that Trump’s lawyers and the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith submit two “competing scenarios” related to the interpretation of the Presidential Records Act (PRA). These scenarios are meant to provide a “correct formulation of the law” to be given to the jury before they begin their deliberations.
Trump is seeking to dismiss the federal case by claiming that the PRA allowed him to determine the sensitive materials he took from the White House in January 2021 as his personal property. His argument is that he cannot be charged with their unauthorized possession. However, Judge Cannon has expressed skepticism about this argument in a previous hearing, stating that it may not be a valid reason to dismiss the entire case before it reaches a jury.
During the same hearing, Judge Cannon rejected another motion from Trump regarding the wording of the Espionage Act. However, she mentioned that these arguments could be raised again in relation to jury-instruction briefing.
This request from Judge Cannon has faced criticism from legal experts. They argue that it is premature to discuss potential jury instructions before the judge has confirmed when the trial will take place and before Trump can stand trial to face the 40 federal charges against him.
The first scenario required by Judge Cannon would involve both parties outlining whether a record retained by a former president is their personal property at the end of their time in office. They would also have to determine whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the record is personal or presidential according to the definitions set forth in the PRA.
The second scenario, which is related to Trump’s defense, focuses on the argument that the president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during their presidency. Some legal experts have described this argument as “legally insane.”
This development adds an interesting twist to the ongoing trial. We’ll continue to follow the latest updates and provide you with more information as it becomes available, on Fan Reviews News.
