A jury has found Bannon guilty. How can a trial judge acquit a defendant (which the judge has declined to do) or dismiss the charges (which the judge is contemplating) after the defendant has been convicted? This is a new one on me. Why have a jury? U.S. judge declines to acquit ex-Trump adviser Bannon, but mulls dismissing charges (msn.com)
I don't do criminal law, so I don't know the procedures, but there's always standard by which a judge can overrule a jury. But in this case, I suspect it's related to what Marcy identified here about the inability to assert his advice of counsel defense. A Tale of Three January 6 Misdemeanors: Steve Bannon, Baked Alaska, and Hatchet Speed - emptywheel
Hopefully, if there’s a dismissal, this judge will come down like a ton of bricks on the corrupt deep stater that sabotaged the trial with an egregious attack on justice.
Seems like something similar happened with that British Nanny several years ago. As I recall, she was convicted of murder but the judge openly disagreed with the jury’s verdict and let her go.
isn’t this the same judge, though, as he had in the trial? The one who ruled all his proposed defense was BS and he couldn’t use them.
From the link: While the precedent was set 61 years ago, U.S. District Court Carl Nichols concluded it is still good law and, as a result, Bannon could not use the advice-of-counsel defense. The ruling also undercut Bannon’s ability to argue that executive privilege excused him from showing up in response to the subpoena. However, Nichols said on several occasions before and during the trial that he thinks the Licavoli case may well be wrong under modern legal standards, but he was compelled to apply it anyway. “I was bound by D.C. Circuit precedent that I’m not even sure is right,” the Trump-appointed judge said Thursday. Now, Bannon’s lawyers will face the task of trying to get the decision overturned or deemed irrelevant, something that may require getting Bannon’s case in front of the full bench of the appeals court or even taking it to the Supreme Court.
He can acquit is he determines the evidence was legally insufficient to support guilt. In other words, it there was no evidence of an element of the crime.
So the judge who denied Bannon the use of a certain defense is considering dismissing the charges because he was not allowed that certain defense… sounds like the Trump judge had a plan for the start. Could the charged be refiled and the trial held by a judge who doesn’t play stupid games?
If he goes through with this, one would have to ask if he typically overturns jury judgements in cases he believes are similarly lacking in evidence. If that’s his thing, then ok… but if he is just doing it for Bannon it’s definitely fishy.
Damn, if only the Supreme Court had said the same thing about Roe v. Wade. "We are bound by precedent though we know it's egregiously wrong."
His reasoning is being “unsure” if a binding precedent is “right.” I guess he doesn’t see a way out of not following the case law, so instead he’s going to invalidate his own ruling.
He sort of reminds me of the "heroic" Mike Pence, who didn't see a way out of following Constitutional law in certifying the electoral votes, so he had to disobey his master. When you have to call Dan Quayle for advice, you're pretty desperate. (Pence to Quayle: "You don't understand my situation." Real heroic talk.)
Interesting... I guess you're ok then with the USSC upholding slavery and racial discrimination such as Plessy v. Ferguson. Interesting. Thankfully, they are the "Supreme" Court and have the ability to fix prior wrongs, including slavery, racial discrimination, and innocent baby murder.
What BS. I was referring to one case, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, in which one of the assholes on the court called women's right to choose "egregiously wrong."
Innocent Baby Murder? Dishonest framing does not make for a righteous cause. It just makes the ideologues seem disingenuous or crazy.
A judge can enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but not only is that exceedingly rare, the judge here found: "The court concludes that the evidence presented in the government’s case was sufficient to sustain a conviction.” He’s also set sentencing. So, I have no idea what’s up other than legal wrangling of the worst sort.
If the judge were to dismiss the case, the government would appeal and the DC Circuit would likely reinstate the conviction. If not, the case is over. No retrial.
The Judge is apparently considering dismissing the indictment as the remedy for the committee members asserting the speech and debate privilege and not testifying. That is purely legal. He asked for briefing. If he grants the motion the case is appealed; there are no double jeopardy concerns because the case was tried and there was a conviction. If the dismissal is reversed, the conviction is reinstated. However he rules, this becomes an appellate issue. I don’t see the courts holding that a party who violates subpoena to Congress can call the Members or Senators generally because that would neuter the process and encourage widespread contempt of Congress. If relevant evidence is excluded because of the assertion of privilege, that may he another issue. But even then, there is very little a member can add to the issues in such a case. And I don’t think it is a defense even to say they were negotiating terms. Because of there is no agreement, the witness needs to show up and asset whatever objections he or she has to particular questions and issues.
