Resolves when a trial begins (defined here as when a witness is sworn to give evidence before a jury in the trial) of Donald Trump in the Southern District of Florida on an indictment including charges against him under the Espionage Act.
Resolves YES if the judge presiding is Aileen Cannon. Resolves NO if it is another judge.
Resolves N/A once it is virtually certain no such trial will begin before the end of 2024.
Almost certainly will be appealed, but then the question is will she remain the judge if the dismissal is overturned (maybe the appeal will give a chance to have her removed from the case?).
Edit: note according to the criteria, the spirit of this market is more about whether Cannon will be swapped out, not whether the trial proceeds or not (N/A in this case)
The decision wasn't out of nowhere... It's a result of evaluating Clarence Thomas' opinion from the Supreme court's Trump immunity ruling:
Looks like it likely will now N/A (but not guaranteed) since it’s being delayed indefinitely:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/07/trump-classified-docs-trial-delay-florida-00156680
“
Cannon’s order does not completely close the door on scheduling the classified documents case for trial in 2024, though it further diminishes that possibility, which had already appeared slim due to the slow progress of the case in recent months.
“
If Cannon starts delaying too much from Nauta's delay tactics I'll start selling my YES shares.
"Thursday was supposed to be the date by which Trump had to respond to Smith’s December trial date request. But with Nauta’s latest delay, Cannon on Friday pushed the response deadline to July 10."
A long shot: if Cannon is resentful of being lied to by Trump she might be less likely to hand over the case to someone else and make it more likely for her to remain as judge of the trial.
Prosecutors ask for December trial:
@NiallWeaver When you put the two in contrast by market resolution criteria, it seems the other market's resolving criteria is by definition narrower; the (probability) conjunction of this market and the Jim Carrey probability below where she does get reassigned -- I put this Jim Carrey probability slightly higher than the Popehat's article given Trump's knack for embroiling others in controversy (he's a controversy typhoon, even his attorney is on trial with him!).
@NiallWeaver Thanks! Great summary and it confirms everything I've read so far, which alone should make me update more towards YES. I viewed most of what as written and spoken of in the media as a "thumb downs" but not anything that requires her to recuse as the article points out; quoting Patrick in the comments: "I think it would be better if courts could be more frank and just say that, courts (whose judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate) decided that the recusal statute doesn’t apply here (for reasons). Then, we wouldn’t have judges writing weird things like inferring bias from prior positions is objectively unreasonable, which is basically telling ordinarily people that they’re illiterate idiots."
One thing I have wondered is what is mentioned as a footnote in that article: "Judge Cannon could decide that she doesn’t want any part of this circus and decide to recuse herself. But I do not believe the historical record suggests that Trumpists leave voluntarily when not wanted." Based on this alone also, I should update more towards YES. There are a 100+ comments on that article, and I've only skimmed a few. Based on this I'll update towards YES for now until I read more.
Does anyone have information of people's judgments of how ambitious Judge Cannon is, as a quick search turns up just knee-jerk reactions in reference to her past ruling with Trump. See also this comment by ScandyAndy: "I think the chances are higher than a snowball's chance in hell that she recuses herself and gets out of this mess and live her life in the relative dukedom that is a federal judgeship at such a young age. Like, why wouldn't you? But then again, I would never be considered for a federal judgeship, so I lack the apparent cognitive and emotional makeup to actually understand this estimate. So take it for what it's worth."
According to https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1667622877019906053 Judge Aileen Cannon will be the permanent judge ("for now").
Former US attorney Joyce White Vance argues Judge Cannon should recuse herself, as does Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe in https://www.newsweek.com/harvard-law-expert-concerned-about-judge-cannons-pro-trump-history-1805772 . Vance speculates that there is a strong likelihood of the prosecution moving to to reassign the judge for the case. In opposition to these view, various internet comments (anonymous) (ie: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217986765#post6 ) point reassignment is rare and seems unlikely to happen unless Cannon makes serious further missteps.
This is echoed in what I find the most impartial and relevant information right now here:
https://twitter.com/bykatiebuehler/status/1667555871344271363 , quoting Katie Buehler "While most experts say Judge Cannon should be removed from the case, others say her previous rulings shouldn’t automatically disqualify her. Judges often get reversed by appellate courts; that doesn’t mean she’s unfit to oversee the criminal case."
Given that (1) the prosecution can move for reassignment/removal, (2) that Judge Cannon has the option to voluntarily recuse herself, and that (3) "most experts" say she should be removed, I will initially bet NO. Intuitively, I feel she will react (as in reactance bias) to this pressure campaign and not recuse herself, so I am betting conservatively. I will try to update after the arraignment hearing on Tuesday (June 13).
@parhizj Quoting from:
"Federal law provides that a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Cannon, a self-proclaimed textualist, could read those simple words and settle the matter by taking herself off the case"
Even if she is a textualist, I think the issue is with the "reasonably" part; if she does not recuse, she will justify it by stating she has not acted in a manner that allows to be "reasonably" questioned.
Some useful information for monitoring future events (from:
https://news.yahoo.com/calls-grow-for-judge-aileen-cannon-to-recuse-herself-in-trump-documents-case-195348307.html ). Stephen Gillers, professor emeritus at NYU Law mentions that (1) above is rare (as others have said), but also joins the "chorus" in saying she must recuse herself. Quoting:
"If Cannon doesn’t voluntarily remove herself from the case, the Department of Justice can file a motion requesting that she do so. If she refuses, the government can file a mandamus application with Cannon’s superiors on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel would then decide whether to remove Cannon. “Mandamus efforts are rarely successful,” Gillers cautioned.
On Monday afternoon, the Miami Herald reported that Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman will oversee Trump’s arraignment on Tuesday, but Cannon “will still remain on the historic case as the lead judge.”
That the magistrate judge will oversee the arraignment is apparently normal, but it seems unlikely now that she will recuse herself at the arraignment itself since she won't be present.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/15/politics/trump-documents-case-cannon-security-clearances/index.html
Giving her first order out already (to expedite security clearances) suggests she won't voluntarily recuse herself, so I am removing that (1) as a possibility and increasing my YES bet, as: the other two scenarios were considered less likely and her voluntarily recusal I considered the most likely, AND from this first order it looks like we will start the trial before the deadline. Given the national scrutiny I doubt she will allow the defense to slow the trial down enough for it to resolve N/A.
As to whether the trial will take place before 2024, another point I wasn't aware of is that there will be expedited appeal (in comments at): https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/06/15/on-judge-aileen-cannon/
And given that the last expedited appeal was granted within less than a week:
Filed ~Sept. 30, 2022 and (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/30/feds-seek-to-fast-track-appeal-in-trump-mar-a-lago-documents-fight-00059879)
Granted appeal ~Oct. 5 2022 (https://www.axios.com/2022/10/05/special-master-mar-a-lago-appeals-court)
I am updating my YES bet slightly based on this that the trial will not drag on.
