Following Southern Florida District Judge Aileen Cannon’s crushing reaction against special counsel Jack Smith, who earlier this week “threw down the gauntlet” by threatening to challenge her decision on jury instructions, leftist commentators’ heads are blowing up everywhere.
Progressive former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner claimed that Judge Cannon had sent Smith a “very ominous” signal about her intention to possibly reject his request for a speedy decision on conflicting jury instructions regarding the Presidential Records Act that had been filed by former President Donald Trump’s legal team.
The attorneys for the former president have maintained that all records kept throughout his tenure in the White House, including those containing secrets related to national security, were declassified in accordance with the law. Smith claims that their interpretation is “baseless” and created “whole cloth,” and he has threatened to file an appeal against Cannon’s decision should she permit the jury to consider the instructions.
“Remember, a couple of days ago Jack Smith filed a scorched-earth filing in this case saying, Wait a minute, Judge Cannon, you’re proposing to give two jury instructions and those jury instructions say the Presidential Records Act means that Donald Trump is essentially not guilty of the charges,” Kirschner said on Brian Tyler Cohen’s YouTube show The Legal Breakdown on Thursday evening, Newsweek reports.
He continued: “And Jack Smith responded by saying that’s not an accurate formulation of the law. And if you give those jury instructions, you will be orchestrating an acquittal, you’ll be orchestrating a not guilty verdict, and you’ll be doing it at a time after the trial has already started, after the jury has sworn in, after jeopardy attaches. You’ll be doing it at a time when the prosecutors couldn’t appeal you if you dismiss the case.”
That’s your problem, Judge Cannon essentially shot back at Smith.
“Separately, to the extent the Special Counsel demands an anticipatory finalization of jury instructions prior to trial, prior to a charge conference, and prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence, the Court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust,” she wrote in a ruling that day.
She went on to say that the jury instructions are “a genuine endeavor, in the context of the future trial, to better appreciate the contrasting perspectives of the parties.”
Kirscher interpreted that to mean, “I will wait until after the jury is sworn. I will wait until after evidence has been presented. I will wait until after Donald Trump has put on his defenses.”
“And then: ‘I still may give that lawless jury instruction about how the Presidential Records Act means the jury must find Donald Trump not guilty. And guess what, Jack? You can’t appeal it at that point. Game over,’” he said.
“This is the most mind-blowing potential abusive judicial discretion imaginable,” he added.
President Trump is still awaiting word from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding his immunity from prosecution due to his previous office, a move Smith intends to block at the court’s forthcoming hearing on April 25.
Legal experts have pointed out that Trump’s attorneys may need up to 90 days to file an appeal of his initial denial of immunity, delaying the commencement of both federal trials until the summer. There will be further factors that contribute to the delay, such as Smith’s repeated demands to examine millions of pages of material.
