The government can usually take interlocutory appeals for pretrial motions, so she can be kept in check there. If she improperly granted a Trump motion to suppress evidence, for example, the government could immediately appeal it to the court of appeals. The case would not be allowed to go to trial until the issue is resolved. That procedure is allowed since the govetnment only gets one shot at a trial whereas the defendant can appeal everything at the end of the case, if convicted. Granting a JOA motion is essentially non reviewable.
Yeah, they can undo the dismissal of the indictment and even suppression. What I'm saying is that I don't think she'll go that far. She goofed up bad on the last case. I don't think she'll do anything crazy here.
I hope you're correct. I'd still try to disqualify her. Her rulings after the execution of the Mar-a-Lago search warrant weren't just bad, they were so over the top wrong I think they showed bias. This was pretty damning language coming from the 11th Circuit, she got benchslapped.: "The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations. Accordingly, we agree with the government that the district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction, and that dismissal of the entire proceeding is required. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23323385/trump-ca11-2022-12-01.pdf
Don’t new and inexperienced judges have mentors they can go to for advice? I mean this case looks to be complicated as heck and she’s bound to hurt herself getting some of her rulings overturned. Seems to me it would be helpful if someone were there to guide her in the right direction.
I don’t think her rulings alone rose to the level of disqualification-worthy. She did nit say anything in the record that was de facto biased. She just got the law wrong, really, really wrong. But that alone is not enough to give rise to legal grounds for recusal.
I acknowledge this is not clear cut and the media "legal experts" seem to be equally divided on the question. What turns it for me is she created non-existent rights for an individual and erred egregiously in his behalf. That same defendant is back in front of her again and I believe there is a well founded perception of bias.
If they do, it's behind the scenes. There's certainly no formal requirement for consultation or mentoring. And to the extent she elects to seek advice, it certainly wouldn't be just with someone more senior, but with someone both more senior and ideologically aligned. And then likely just to test her thinking or how to word it to make it more acceptable. Again, all this is speculation. Just because you asked. Parenthetically, practicing for 3 decades, I cannot overstate the value of running your thinking by a colleague. Many times, when I have a bit of a stretch of an argument, I go to explain it to a colleague to see if I can sell it. Most of the time I realize it won't work before I ever finish and hear the reaction. just hearing it come out of my mouth tells me.
Can't speak about Federal judges, but this is common at the state court level. Not a formal mentoring program or anything, but judges talk to each other.
I know, so do you think the negative reaction to her rulings from the upper court might have enlightened her a bit?
It's hard to say. I simply don't trust her, she's biased in favor Trump. I'm being paranoid here, but she could possibly go through all of the pretrial motions, etc. as she should and then go rogue again during the trial when it is essentially impossible for the government to do anything about it. On a less sinister note, she could significantly delay the proceeding which the Trump camp seems to want.
Come to think of it, she might stay during the campaign (I don't know the standards - this is all terra incognita). A Republican victory means dismissal of all charges and pardon on January 20, 2025 at noon. Even if he was not the nominee, whoever was would have to promise that.
If she was truly unbiased, she would recognize the nation’s perception — the right thinks the fix is in, the left thinks shes incapable of being unbiased, and voluntarily step down. She cannot do her job, because she is incapable of silencing the outside noise. But she won’t, leading to the clown show this trial could become under inept judicial leadership. Still, as a matter of law, I don’t think there’s grounds for mandatory recusal or disqualification.
She had no prior judicial experience prior to being appointed by Trump, so that's it. Her 4 trials: Felon in possession of a firearm. Assaulting a prosecutor Tax fraud Smuggling undocumented migrants from the Bahamas
