Althouse: "The judge presiding over the classified documents case in Florida denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss charges based on unconstitutional vagueness...."

१४ मार्च, २०२४

"The judge presiding over the classified documents case in Florida denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss charges based on unconstitutional vagueness...."

"'Although the Motion raises various arguments warranting serious consideration, the Court ultimately determines, following lengthy oral argument, that resolution of the overall question presented depends too greatly on contested instructional questions about still-fluctuating definitions of statutory terms/phrases as charged,” [Judge Aileen] Cannon wrote. Cannon noted in her denial that the issue of the potential vagueness of the statue would be better brought 'with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions' instead of in Trump’s motion to dismiss charges. Cannon has not ruled on Trump’s motion to dismiss based on his argument that he had the authority as president to declare documents as his 'personal' records – or on any of his other motions to dismiss the case."

CNN reports.

७ टिप्पण्या:

boatbuilder म्हणाले...: ...resolution of the overall question presented depends too greatly on contested instructional questions about still-fluctuating definitions of statutory terms/phrases as charged,”

I'm a lawyer. I have no idea what the judge means. Isn't that the essence of vagueness? "still fluctuating." Apparently that means that the judge herself doesn't know what the laws that the defendants are charged with actually mean, and won't until sometime before the jury is charged--or perhaps while the jury is charged. Or maybe "let's let the jury figure it out, Hell, we don't understand it."

Here's hoping that neither I nor any of you are ever charged with a crime based on still-fluctuating definitions of statutory terms. God help us all.; १४/३/२४, ६:०९ PM
Bruce Hayden म्हणाले...: “I'm a lawyer. I have no idea what the judge means. Isn't that the essence of vagueness? "still fluctuating." Apparently that means that the judge herself doesn't know what the laws that the defendants are charged with actually mean, and won't until sometime before the jury is charged--or perhaps while the jury is charged. Or maybe "let's let the jury figure it out, Hell, we don't understand it."”

As I understand it, the judge essentially said that it is too early to decide whether the statutes, as applied by the prosecutors, were too broad, and thus too ambiguous, to survive a Due Process challenge. She suggested that the time to make those decisions was when she and party counsel drafted jury instructions. Think of it as the difference between a facial a “as applied” challenge. She essentially rejected the facial challenge, but said that she would be open, later, at the appropriate time, to entertain an “as applied” challenge. Jury Instructions are where the rubber meets the road, esp here, where there is no established[recedent supporting the government’s theories.

I was involved to some extent with jury instructions over my career. Very many criminal offenses and civil claims have stock jury instructions. But underneath them is citatable precedent - court cases essentially supporting the distinctions made in an instruction. One of my mentors in patent law had a book he maintained and sold (>$1k a book, plus a yearly update fee for updates) for patent law jury instructions. My job, at times, was to read through all of the patent cases for a year, across the country, and excerpt out what was new, and what just reinforced previous precedent. Smith (and Bratt here) are going to have a big problem getting jury instructions approved that support their novel interpretations of the various statutes involved. That’s, BTW, also why novel interpretations of statutes are rarely approved by judges, because Due Process requires that potential defendants be on notice that what they do violates those laws, and that usually requires support of court precedence.; १४/३/२४, ९:१८ PM
Kakistocracy म्हणाले...: Cannon will wait until after the jury is empaneled to dismiss the charges against Trump, which could not be overturned on appeal because of the Fifth Amendment ban on Double Jeopardy.; १५/३/२४, ५:५५ AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) म्हणाले...: Excellent input from our treasured resident lawyer-commenters. Judge Cannon did repeatedly ask the key questions: How and when and against whom have these charges been applied before. And as noted in Althouse’s excerpt the judge is highly aware of the “selective” nature of this “selective prosecution.” More cracks in the hideous façade these Leftist Activists acting as prosecutors have constructed to resemble Justice while behind it they scheme to rig the election.; १५/३/२४, ६:०१ AM
boatbuilder म्हणाले...: Bruce Hayden--you are thinking like a lawyer, and taking it for granted that the process is appropriate.

I am looking at it as a citizen. It is absolutely outrageous that any person may be criminally charged with a "crime" which cannot be understood at the outset by the judge trying the case, let alone the person charged--and the meaning of which is supposed to be defined and correctly applied by the jury once the judge and lawyers can figure it out.

Kafka wrote a good story about this sort of thing.

I understand the process relating to jury instructions. My experience is that once you get past 20 minutes or 10 pages, the jury generally gets lost in the details.; १५/३/२४, ६:५६ AM
Rusty म्हणाले...: " My job, at times, was to read through all of the patent cases for a year, across the country, and excerpt out what was new, and what just reinforced previous precedent. "
The fact that you did that and didn't put a gun in your mouth or jump off a skyscraper is a testament to your tenacity.; १५/३/२४, ८:५७ AM
Bruce Hayden म्हणाले...: " My job, at times, was to read through all of the patent cases for a year, across the country, and excerpt out what was new, and what just reinforced previous precedent. "

“The fact that you did that and didn't put a gun in your mouth or jump off a skyscraper is a testament to your tenacity.”

It really wasn’t so bad. When you get into something fairly deeply, the complexity kinda disappears as a result. I wasn’t reading the cases for the background, as much as for the legal twists and turns. Patent law is interesting, because it is fairly complicated, and goes back over two centuries. And in the scheme of things, that is what a lot of law is about, charting those twists and turns.

The reason that I liked patent law is that when you got bored with the law, you could get involved in the technology, and when that became boring, you could jump back into the law. I got to deal with a lot of interesting technology, and my job was to understand it well enough that I could write good claims on it. Patent attorneys who don’t understand the technology they are working on well enough to potentially contribute, can’t do well claiming it. And a good patent attorney who does understand his technical subject matter quickly recognizes patents written by practioners who don’t, and instead are just working as scribes.

My father spent almost a half century doing banking and real estate law. I had always assumed that I would go into practice with him. I am so glad I didn’t. I would have been bored silly.; १५/३/२४, ३:१० PM