I understand this is a rarely use procedure that can be used to get Judge Cannon to recuse herself from the Trump case. Could someone explain what this writ is, and if it can actually be an effective procedure in this case?
I have not dealt with this in a criminal case or in a Federal case but have in a couple Florida civil cases in state court. The way it happened in those cases was a party filed a Motion asking the Judge to disqualify himself. There are rules governing that as well. The Judge denied the Motion, and the party seeking disqualification appealed to the District Court of Appeal. In those cases, the appellate filings were Petitions for Writ of Prohibition. Generally speaking, it's not an easy standard to disqualify a judge. This was not one of my cases but just Googled and pulled this 5th DCA Opinion. Time Warner Entertainment v. Baker, 647 So. 2d 1070 | Casetext Search + Citator We make these observations before discussing the writ pending before us. First, we have jurisdiction. A writ of prohibition is the proper procedure for appellate review to test the validity of a motion to disqualify. Mangina v. Cornelius, 462 So.2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So.2d 553, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
I haven’t dealt with it in the context of a federal recusal, but generally the writ is used to compel a government official to do something that the law imposes a mandatory, non-discretionary duty on them to do. Because mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved for extraordinary circumstances, to prevail they would have to show not only that recusal would be appropriate, but that they have a clear indisputable right to recusal, and that there are no other available procedural mechanisms (such as a direct appeal) that could provide that relief. Edit: to simplify, an argument that a judge has failed to comply with the federal recusal statute could form the basis of a mandamus petition, but it’s really hard to win.
As I understand this case in particular, that her previous rulings on this case were not only overturned, but she also received a scolding for the rulings. Seems to me that would qualify as a right to ask for a recusal, but I don’t know. Further I’m understanding that once she’s made a ruling that it can’t be appealed, that she could possibly throw out the entire case and there would be no recourse for the prosecution to take.
Listening to Steve Vladeck and Bobby Chesney talk about this - she can dismiss the charges, unappealable and with double jeopardy implication pursuant to Fed Crim Rule 29
So the question would be if she would actually have the nerve to dismiss the case, or overrule a jury verdict of guilty.
Don't know Crim PRo, but from the podcast, think she could do at the conclusion of Government's case before it goes to jury
Just asking your opinion but do you think this is something she might do considering the blowback she might get? What could the possible upside be for her?
I suppose she might but I don't really know any more on this than a layperson. Everything posted above looks correct to me. I don't think she can be forced
True, that crossed my mind when I got an off topic rating on the 1st post a couple of times. Just didn't think it was worth bitchin about.
Counterpoint: isn’t this moment exactly why she is on the bench? Prediction: it will play out exactly the way Trump has planned. Trump is going to win the nomination, be “totally exonerated” going into Election Day, and have the maggots eating the brains of the rubes who vote for him.
It's not going to happen, and it wouldn't be granted. Unless Cannon recuses voluntarily, this is her case. Still, I think people are overreacting. She's bad at her job, but I highly, highly doubt she'll do anything egregious here.
Cannon absolutely should recuse, but she won't. Trump and the American people both deserve a fair trail with and impartial judge - she has already proven in the first go-round that she is anything but.
What would "egregious," look like? How many methods of favoring one side over the other does a judge have? She wouldn't have to call for a complete dismissal to impact the outcome, would she?
Not letting the case go to the jury if it goes to trial. Suppressing key evidence based on a laughably bad theory.
It's been an available rule in state court since before I started practicing. These motions are made routinely in every criminal trial. I would note it is pretty unusual to get one of these granted. The current rule: RULE 3.380. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL (a) Timing. If, at the close of the evidence for the state or at the close of all the evidence in the cause, the court is of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a conviction, it may, and on the motion of the prosecuting attorney or the defendant shall, enter a judgment of acquittal. (b) Waiver. A motion for judgment of acquittal is not waived by subsequent introduction of evidence on behalf of the defendant. The motion must fully set forth the grounds on which it is based. (c) Renewal. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict, the defendant’s motion may be made or renewed within 10 days after the reception of a verdict and the jury is discharged or such further time as the court may allow.
