Judge Cannon ignoring 'common practice' by shutting out Mar-a-Lago warrant judge

More questions are being raised about the way in which U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon is conducting the DOJ criminal indictment of Donald Trump for obstruction of justice.

On Thursday the New York Times reported that colleagues of the Trump-appointed jurist recommended she step aside due to her lack of experience with the report adding, "The first judge to call Judge Cannon, this person said, suggested to her that it would be better for the case to be handled by a jurist based closer to the district’s busiest courthouse in Miami, where the grand jury that indicted Mr. Trump had sat."

However, Cannon demurred and kept the case, which she has managed to slow walk by entertaining what many of her critics contend are "friviolous" motions that have, in turn, kept her from setting a trial date.

Now the Times is reporting that Cannon has ignored a common practice of delegating some of the work dealing with "routine motions" to magistrate judges who have more than a passing familiarity with the case at hand.

ALSO READ: Republicans weaponizing ignorance is a dangerous game

In this case, Cannon has hoarded all the motions and has not enlisted the help of magistrate judge Bruce E. Reinhart to keep the case moving.

Calling it a "striking aspect" of the proceedings, the Times reported, "Judge Cannon has not delegated any motions to the magistrate judge in this case, Bruce E. Reinhart. And Judge Reinhart knows the case well, having approved the search warrant used by the F.B.I. two years ago when agents descended on Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s estate in Palm Beach, and hauled away a trove of classified material that is central to the case."

The Times report added, "While judges enjoy wide latitude over the timing of cases and do not generally need to justify their scheduling decisions, Judge Cannon cited an odd authority for putting off the trial: a 2013 essay titled 'The National Security Trials: A Judge’s Perspective," which led Tracey E. George, a professor at the Vanderbilt Law School, to note the unusual decision to rely on a non-legally binding opinion.

"It’s an interesting sign about the work that’s going into writing these decisions. Or the lack of work, the lack of care,” George dryly suggested.

You can read more here.