U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has denied a motion by Donald Trump to dismiss his federal criminal case in Florida, rejecting his claim that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) effectively converted classified records into his personal documents upon leaving office. Despite this ruling, Cannon has not yet ruled on special counsel Jack Smith's request for clarity on jury instructions, nor has she indicated whether the PRA could serve as a defense for Trump in the future, as reported by The Washington Post.
The judge's decision leaves open the possibility that the PRA could play a role in the trial, a scenario that legal experts caution could lead to complications.
While Cannon did reject Trump's motion to dismiss based on the PRA argument, she noted that her decision was solely for the pretrial phase and that she could potentially dismiss the case later if Trump raises the PRA as a defense, which would eliminate the possibility of an appeal once a jury is seated.
Cannon's ruling comes after a recent hearing on Trump's PRA motion, and it follows Smith's rejection of her request for proposed jury instructions.
In a court filing, Smith urged Cannon to promptly decide on the interpretation of the PRA that the jury instructions were based on, warning of a possible appeal if the instructions align with Trump's perspective, which Smith considers legally flawed.
In response to Smith's objections, Cannon stated that finalizing jury instructions before trial, charge conferences, or the presentation of defenses and evidence is unprecedented.
She clarified that her previous request for proposed jury instructions was aimed at understanding the parties' positions and the complexities of the case, rather than finalizing definitions or defenses.
Despite Cannon's explanation, some legal experts find her response to Smith's objections unusual, noting that judges typically address jury instructions later in the trial process.
Cannon's delay in ruling on jury instructions raises concerns about her approach to the trial and the potential impact of the PRA.
While Cannon's ruling is not a clear victory for Smith, it is seen as a positive development for the prosecution.
However, the lack of a definitive ruling on jury instructions could hinder Smith's ability to appeal before the trial, potentially affecting the trial's course and outcome.
Smith may continue to push for a ruling on jury instructions and could seek a writ of mandamus from the appellate court if Cannon does not make a decision.
In the meantime, he could file a motion to preclude any reference to the PRA ahead of the trial to preserve his right to appeal.