JUST IN: Judge Cannon Smacks Down Jack Smith In Major Ruling

U.S. Judge for the District of Southern Florida Aileen Cannon handed Biden special prosecutor Jack Smith another setback on Thursday by denying him a quick ruling on jury instructions relating to the Presidential Records Act.

Former President Donald Trump has argued that the Presidential Records Act granted him authority to declassify documents. Interpretation of the statute has remained key to the former president’s defense against charges of illegally mishandling classified documents brought forward by the Biden DOJ.

Smith argued that Judge Cannon’s request for competing jury instructions relies on a “fundamentally flawed legal premise.” An immediate review, Smith argued, would allow his office to seek an immediate appeal if Judge Cannon agrees with the former president that the PRA does not distinguish between governmental records and personal property.

In a ruling handed down on Thursday, Judge Cannon denied Smith’s request for an expedited review.

NEW: Shorter Judge Cannon.

GFY Jack Smith pic.twitter.com/qsZYhWHNzM

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 4, 2024

While Cannon did deny a separate motion from Trump’s legal team to dismiss the case outright, this ruling was widely expected. The rejection of Smith’s request for an expedited review will continue to lengthen the pretrial process, however, something that has deeply angered left-wing legal analysts and pundits, who have been open about their desires for a Trump conviction prior to election day.

“Separately, to the extent the Special Counsel demands an anticipatory finalization of jury instructions prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence, the Court declines the demand as unprecedented and unjust,” Cannon wrote in her ruling.

“The Court’s Order soliciting preliminary draft instructions on certain counts should not be misconstrued as declaring a final definition on any essential element or asserted defense in this case,” she continued. “Nor should it be interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression. As always, any party remains free to avail itself of whatever appellate options it sees fit to invoke, as permitted by law.”