this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2023
21 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10176 readers
136 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My understanding is that for efficiency it's typical for cases to continue to trial under the judge who presided over the preliminary hearings. That said, I expect the government will petition for her recusal or a change of judge based on how badly she got smacked down by the appeals court.
I believe she will hear it, that is, the initial appearance. The procedures, as I understand it, is that Trump will appear before a judge (his pal, Aileen Cannon) to formally hear the charges against him read for the first time. He is, not surprisingly, expected to plead not guilty. After arraignment, he would probably be released on his own recognizance pending his next court appearance, similar to the indictment in NY. The next step would then be moved to a different judge, either through her recusal, is she's smart, or through a motion by the prosecution.