Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting President Trump’s presidential records case, previously threatened to appeal Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling regarding jury instruction for the trial.
Smith was outraged that Cannon would potentially be issuing two jury instructions in the trial, but the Judge fired back in a statement recently, showing no signs of backing down from her stance.
In response to Smith’s request to have only one set of jury instructions, Judge Cannon essentially told him to pound sand.
Part of her ruling on Smith’s request stated:
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.
“That’s your problem.” Judge Cannon
Boooooooom! pic.twitter.com/KNh6AmNHn6— #Impeach46 #NeverSurrender #BuyMadeInUSA (@RicoRich_Anon) April 5, 2024
Boom!! Put that in your pipe and smoke it Jack! pic.twitter.com/NyjPxqOqkR
— Chuck J Gibbons (@ChuckJGibbons1) April 5, 2024
The special prosecutor wants the Judge, and the jury, to ignore the Presidential Records Act, which Trump’s lawyers requested be presented in the jury instructions.
Former Mueller prosecutor Van Grak explains how Jack Smith wants Judge Cannon to ignore the Presidential Records Act and essentially find Trump guilty. pic.twitter.com/IfjPPWkzfr
— Robert Gouveia Esq. (@RobGouveiaEsq) April 5, 2024
The heated way Smith worded his request may have been a way of attempting to strong-arm Cannon into ruling in his favor, but if that was the case, his attempt backfired stupendously.
Isn’t this the same villain from Superman? pic.twitter.com/t5dloNGRcR
— USA_Patriot_357 (@357Patriot) April 4, 2024
— Marieshirley (@ShirleyZoni) April 4, 2024
Newsweek has more on Judge Cannon’s recent scolding:
Last month, Cannon asked Smith’s team and Trump’s lawyers to file jury instructions based on two hypothetical scenarios.
In the first scenario Cannon required, both parties would outline for a jury’s consideration whether a record retained by a former president at the end of his time in office is his personal property and whether the government had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that “it is personal or presidential using the definitions set forth” in the Presidential Records Act (PRA).
The second scenario required by Cannon would lay out the arguments in which a president “has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential” during his presidency.
Cannon wrote in her ruling on Thursday: “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 added that the court’s order to ask for preliminary draft instructions on certain counts should not be interpreted as anything other than “a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions.”
Join the conversation!
Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!