Mark Joseph Stern writes:

Cannon has been assigned to handle at least the initial phases of Trump’s federal indictment in Florida. Her name appeared on the summons sent to the former president, as did Bruce Reinhart’s, the magistrate judge who signed off on the Mar-a-Lago search warrant. (Magistrate judges may conduct preliminary proceedings in a criminal case, like authorizing a warrant, but it’s unlikely that Reinhart will play a major role here.) Typically, federal district court judges are assigned cases randomly, though the court may transfer a case to a specific judge who has prior experience with the matter. So, perhaps Cannon’s (calamitous) oversight of the Mar-a-Lago search dispute gave her dibs on this indictment. Cases are also reassigned based on workload to ensure that there’s a roughly even distribution among active judges. All of this means that we don’t really know why Cannon was initially assigned the case, and we don’t know if she will keep it. We can be fairly confident, though, based on her history, that she will do everything in her power to keep it to protect her benefactor, who is clearly in immense legal danger from this case.

Smith, for his part, has the option of requesting a different judge; 11th Circuit precedent allows reassignment when the presiding judge appears unable to put “previous views and findings aside.” (This is a nice way of saying that they’re in the tank for the defendant.) Trump would surely fight such a request, and it’s impossible to say where the 11th Circuit would come down.

Imagine, though, that Cannon does preside over this case. She has infinite tools at her disposal to thwart the prosecution at nearly every turn. Big swings, like tossing out the whole case—a very real possibility in her courtroom of chaos—can be appealed and overturned. But at every step, there are opportunities for sabotage. Cannon can try to rig voir dire to help the defense stack the jury with Trump supporters. She can exclude evidence and testimony that’s especially damning to Trump. She can disqualify witnesses who are favorable to the prosecution. She can sustain the defense’s frivolous objections and overrule the prosecution’s meritorious ones. She can direct a verdict of acquittal to render the jury superfluous. She can declare a mistrial prematurely for any number of reasons, including lengthy juror deliberations, and stretch out various deadlines to run out the clock. Many of these procedural moves could not be appealed until the proceedings have drawn to a close; appeals courts do not referee every little dispute in a jury trial as they happen. Cannon will be in control.

That should be a frightening prospect for Smith. Cannon has already revealed her profound bias in favor of the president who appointed her, breaking a series of bedrock rules to help him escape the classified documents probe. Now she seems to have gotten a second bite at the apple, a chance to manipulate court procedures to assist Trump and subvert Smith at every turn. Let’s not pretend as if it’s a mystery whether she will; her name is already synonymous with MAGA-style judicial corruption. The simplest way to put it is that if Cannon remains assigned to this case, Trump will not be convicted, no matter how damning the evidence. That conclusion is not defeatist or cynical; it is a mere acknowledgment of the reality that Republicans have created by stacking the bench with venal mediocrities like Aileen Cannon. [Continue reading…]

Lawfare‘s Scott R. Anderson et al write:

However Cannon ended up assigned to the case, it is unclear whether she will remain on board past the arraignment—and, if she does, what impact her assignment might have on the case. For now, Judge Cannon’s history with the case might reasonably lead one to conclude that her assignment is a disaster for the special counsel and a boon for Trump. But Cannon, a former prosecutor, is no stranger to criminal trials. Nor is the forthcoming criminal trial likely to implicate the same unusual circumstances and consideration of open-ended equitable principles as the debate over the special master did, at least in her view. And it remains to be seen whether the sharp rebuke she received from a panel of her colleagues on the Eleventh Circuit—each appointed by Republican Presidents—has tempered her apparent inclination to mangle the law in favor of the former President. [Continue reading…]