Who May/Should Preside Over Former President Trump’s Second Impeachment Trial?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone argue that the constitutional ambiguity over who may preside over former President Trump’s second impeachment trial supports the conclusion that the Senate should ask Chief Justice John Roberts to preside. Dean Amar and Professor Mazzone explain why other people—such as Senate President Pro Tempore, the Vice President, and any other senator—are not ideal options because of real or perceived conflicts.

Read More

Barmapov v. Amuial

Docket: 19-12256

Opinion Date: February 3, 2021

Judge: William Holcombe Pryor, Jr.

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice because it was a shotgun pleading. After reviewing the second amended complaint, the court agreed with the district court that it was "a rambling, dizzying array of nearly incomprehensible pleading." Therefore, plaintiff, who was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, repeatedly failed to file a proper pleading.

United States v. Cannon

Docket: 16-16194

Opinion Date: February 3, 2021

Judge: Hull

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendant Cannon and Holton's convictions for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence and a drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their participation in a plan to rob a stash house containing 18 kilograms of cocaine. However, one participant was an undercover detective and the stash house was fake. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for discovery on the claim of selective prosecution; Holton failed to show that the indictment was multiplicitious where the two conspiracy offenses have separate elements; and taken in its entirety, the government's conduct was not outrageous and did not violate due process. The court rejected defendants' challenges to the district court's refusal to give an entrapment defense. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a juror; Cannon's right to have all proceedings in open court transcribed was not violated; and defendants' challenge to their 18 U.S.C. 924(c) convictions on Count 3 fail.