The judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case has scheduled special hearings for two co-defendants of former President Donald Trump. However, the lack of written reasons for these hearings may lead to an appeal.
Judge Aileen Cannon, appointed by Trump, has agreed to the Justice Department’s request for “Garcia hearings” for Waltine Nauta, Trump’s butler, and Carlos de Oliveira, Trump’s property manager. These hearings, set for October 12, aim to address potential conflicts in the case, as the defendants’ attorneys also represent individuals whom the government wishes to call as witnesses.
Nauta, represented by Sasha Dadan and Stanley E. Woodward, faces charges of aiding Trump in concealing secret documents, while De Oliveira, represented by Larry Donald Murrell, Jr., and John S. Irving, faces charges related to an alleged attempt to delete surveillance footage at Mar-a-Lago.
In the larger classified documents case, Trump is confronted with 40 counts, including unlawful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding documents, and corruptly concealing documents. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Despite the complexity and significance of the case, Cannon has not provided reasons for scheduling these special hearings. This absence of reasoning has raised concerns, particularly considering her prior criticism by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for failing to provide sufficient reasoning for her rulings on key evidence in the Trump case.
Last year, Cannon granted Trump’s request to block the government from using evidence obtained from a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. The appeals court criticized Cannon for her decision, stating that Trump had not provided enough information for her to make an informed ruling.
Peter M. Shane, an adjunct professor of law at New York University, expressed doubts about Cannon’s ability to handle such a complex case, citing her limited trial experience. He likened her handling of the case to a contestant on a baking show with minimal experience attempting a complex recipe.
Although Cannon’s initial rulings raised concerns about her impartiality, Shane believes her inexperience is equally troubling in handling a case of this magnitude. However, the disqualification statute does not cite inexperience as a basis for removal.
While some experts speculate that another appeal could prompt Cannon’s removal from the case, others note that self-recusals due to a perception of partiality are rare, and a formal motion would likely be necessary.
The handling of the Trump case by Judge Aileen Cannon continues to raise questions about the proceedings and the judge’s qualifications for overseeing such a high-profile trial.