In the ongoing case involving former President Donald Trump and alleged mishandling of classified documents, legal analyst Harry Litman pointed out a notable error in U.S. district judge Aileen Cain’s recent ruling.
Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for 2024, faces 40 charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith from the Department of Justice. The allegations involve Trump retaining classified materials post his presidency and impeding federal recoveries at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, a claim that Trump vehemently denies.
Despite removing an accusation about Trump displaying a military map in New Jersey from the original indictment, Judge Cannon kept the rest intact, rejecting Trump’s plea to dismiss certain charges.
Litman criticized Cannon’s ruling, highlighting a significant flaw in her decision related to count 34 of the indictment, where unanimity on certain aspects would be necessary for the jury. However, Litman argued that this requirement might not align with existing laws.
Another aspect of Cannon’s decision-making that Litman commented on was the detailed outlining of violations in Trump’s indictment, a tactic he believes could prejudice the jury. Litman argues that all that’s in the indictment is essentially trial evidence.
Cannon faces criticism for delaying the trial without setting a start date, with allegations that she may be biased towards Trump and has had clashes with prosecutor Smith.
MSNBC’s legal correspondent Lisa Rubin previously discussed this motion’s implications, noting potential advantages for Trump and his campaign manager, Susie Wiles, who has been described as a key yet relatively unknown figure in Trump’s camp.