In a recent court filing, special counsel Jack Smith referenced a case from Judge Aileen Cannon's past to reinforce the argument for ruling against former President Donald Trump in the ongoing Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. As Trump's legal team attempts to portray the prosecution as a politically motivated witch hunt, they have requested that Cannon mandate the turnover of additional evidence, despite already receiving over a million pages of evidence.

Smith's filing highlights a case in which Cannon, while serving as a federal prosecutor for the Department of Justice in South Florida in 2015, worked on a sting operation that led to the conviction of two individuals attempting to loot a phony stash house. One of the defendants appealed on the grounds of "unfair prosecution," claiming racial bias since stash house sting operations primarily target Black and Hispanic individuals. However, Cannon's former team successfully defended the case in 2021, emphasizing the need for a "demanding burden" in such claims.

By citing the case of U.S. vs. Cannon, Smith aims to counter Trump's assertions of selective prosecution in his own documents case. The prosecutors argue that material discovery requests are governed by well-established and binding precedents from Armstrong and Jordan. This strategic move not only sends a message to the judge but also resonates with the public closely following this historic case.

Experts have noted the significance of Smith's decision to cite a case in which Cannon was directly involved. Catherine Ross, a professor emeritus at George Washington University Law School, called it a "brilliant maneuver" considering Cannon's limited trial experience. Ross further explained that confronting a judge with their own opinion or joining one holds more weight, but Smith's approach effectively puts her in a tight spot.

In addition to citing precedents, Smith's team accused Cannon of making an error by granting Trump's motion to unredact portions of their motions in discovery. The prosecution argues that publicly docketing unredacted material could jeopardize the safety of witnesses, as threats, intimidation, and harassment have previously occurred when the identities of individuals involved in cases involving Trump were disclosed.

Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman commented on Cannon's rulings, describing them as debacles that were later reversed by the 11th Circuit. Litman suggested that Cannon may have put herself "in a box of her own making," potentially leading to a recusal by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, a member of special counsel Bob Mueller's team, also highlighted the possibility of Cannon facing recusal by the 11th Circuit due to her handling of the case. He expressed concern about potential interference with the ongoing criminal investigation by disclosing the names of individuals under investigation, resembling similar problems encountered during the initial investigation.

As the trial continues, the citing of case law and subsequent implications have heightened the stakes of the Mar-a-Lago documents case. The actions of Judge Aileen Cannon and the decisions made during the proceedings may have repercussions that extend beyond the courtroom.