Aileen Cannon's Ruling Against Donald Trump Raises Eyebrows

The judge in Donald Trump's classified documents case has said that prosecution's demands to shut down his chief line of defense is "unprecedented and unjust," even as she dismissed the former president's request to dismiss the charges.

In a ruling on April 4, Judge Aileen Cannon refused to finalize her jury instructions, in which she proposed to tell the jury that Trump might have had the legal right under the Presidential Records Act to retain classified documents as personal items.

Jack Smith, the chief prosecutor in the case, has said Trump had no legal right to retain the documents.

Cannon, a Trump appointee, is overseeing the case, in which the former president is accused of illegally retaining classified documents, hoarding them at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and obstructing attempts by federal officials to retrieve them. The former president has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. He has denied any wrongdoing in the case and has said the documents he retained were personal.

Newsweek has contacted Trump's attorney for comment by email.

In Thursday's ruling, Cannon refused to grant Trump's request that she dismiss the charges based on his claim that he had designated the classified documents as personal items.

However, Cannon added that she might make a decision on the issue at a later date.

Smith wrote in a filing on April 2 that if a jury was sworn in and Cannon then ruled that Trump should be acquitted because he had a legal right to retain the documents, then prosecutors would not be permitted to appeal—as the federal double jeopardy rule means a defendant cannot be tried for the same crime twice.

Cannon rejected Smith's request in her ruling.

"To the extent the Special Counsel demands an anticipatory finalization of jury instructions prior to trial, prior to a charge conference, and prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence, the Court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust," Cannon wrote in Thursday's ruling.

"The Court's Order soliciting preliminary draft instructions on certain counts should not be misconstrued as declaring a final definition on any essential element or asserted defense in this case," she added.

Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general of the United States, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, "Judge Cannon just rejected Trump's bogus Presidential Records Act defense, but only for now. She has (weirdly and pointedly) refused to actually decide the issue, despite Jack Smith's warning that double jeopardy would then apply.

"I think Smith has no choice but to go to the 11th Circuit on mandamus. It's a tough standard, but it is met here."

A mandamus ruling from a higher court would command Cannon to carry out a certain duty—in this case, to set out before trial whether Trump had a legal right to retain classified documents.

Ryan Goodman, a former special counsel at the Department of Defense, wrote on X that Cannon might be "buying time" to dismiss the case, "based on ludicrous legal theory that can't then be appealed."

In an appearance on CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront Thursday, Goodman said Trump was trying to "somehow magically make these highly classified documents his own. It's not what the law says. It's ludicrous."

He added: "So instead of the judge saying, 'Of course that's ludicrous,' she just said: 'I'm not deciding that pretrial. I might let that happen during the trial, and maybe that's what I'll decide in the midst of the trial.'"