Why Judge Aileen Cannon might be good for us
I was furious with Judge E Susan Garsh. It was 2015 and I was following the Aaron Hernandez case, where the former football great was being tried for murdering his friend Odin Lloyd. The judge disallowed prior bad acts, so the prosecution could not introduce the known fact that Aaron Hernandez had once tried to murder another personal friend. His defence lawyers made a mockery of the proceedings by repeating over and over, “Why would Aaron murder Odin Lloyd? Odin Lloyd,” they said, ”was Aaron’s personal friend!”
What the prosecution couldn’t tell the jury was that Aaron had already tried to murder a personal friend before. So the defence’s rhetorical question, in light of the known facts, was infuriating. The cynical defence team knew this, of course, and they flouted their advantage. That was why I was furious with the judge.
But that was because I didn’t understand the method in her madness. Judge Garsh knew how damning the prior bad act was. But she also understood that the defence had a virtually unwinnable case, even without it. Sure enough, they lost, and Garsh sentenced Hernandez to life in prison without possibility of parole.
It was an ironclad sentence that was virtually unbreakable by appeal. You see, the defence had nothing to come back on. Her trial was virtually airtight and they couldn’t find a crack in it in order to mount a viable appeal. They couldn’t even claim the jury was unduly prejudiced against their client with the introduction of prior bad acts!
The law, like so many things in life, is often like a chess game. Played by a master it is understood that you don’t necessarily always capture a piece just because you can. Sometimes the offered piece is a trap set by your opponent. Sometimes not capturing it can lead to greater advantages further on, like even more captured pieces or an unbeatable positional advantage.
That is why Judge Aileen Cannon can turn out to be a good thing for us. First, we need to understand that many of the things that we fear that she can do as the judge, in the case of the People of the United States v. Donald J Trump, are simply wrong. For instance, she can’t throw out the case. If she tried the government would simply appeal and have the case automatically reinstated with a new judge. She can’t sentence Trump to no time in prison if Trump is found guilty. Again, any sentence less than five years and the government will appeal and the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse the decision. Besides, there are federal sentencing guidelines that the judge MUST follow. She has no choice.
But more to the point, imagine how lame an appeal would look. Imagine a scene after Trump is convicted and sentenced and his lawyers try to appeal. Trump was indicted by a grand jury of his peers. He was tried in his own backyard and found guilty by a jury of his peers. The judge was one of the all-time MAGA whackos. He was convicted mostly by his own words and the testimony of his own lawyers, without any witnesses hostile to his defence.
On what grounds could Trump mount a legitimate appeal under those circumstances? Cries of “witch hunt” might work in MAGAland, but it rings hollow indeed in the corridors of justice. As Bill Barr put it, Trump is toast. With Judge Aileen Cannon presiding, that might be, ironically, even truer than he thinks. And, as ever, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, comrades and friends, stay safe.
Robert Harrington is an American expat living in Britain. He is a portrait painter.