No. of Recommendations: 12
After losing his first appear to the 11th District Court to have his Georgia prosecution moved from Georgia State court to federal court, Meadows has hired Paul Clement as new counsel and has filed a motion for his request for removal to be heard by the entire 11th Circuit Court -- all 12 judges.
Has Meadows conducted a poll of those judges to determine there are seven justices within the 11th District that WOULD support his argument, despite the initial panel of three judges UNANIMOUSLY rejecting his request?
No talking head expert I can find in the media believes the merits of Meadows' rationale (the acts triggering my indictment were part of my duties of office so I should be tried in federal court). Paul Clement has argued dozens of cases in front of the Supreme Court in the past as Solicitor General under GW Bush. I can't imagine Clement intellectually concurs with the rationale for removal of Meadows' case but clearly Meadows expects to have his second request rejected by the en banc collection of 11th District justices and thus plans on appealing to the Supreme Court.
Meadows seems to have concluded that his best bet for escaping justice is to manage to have one MAGA fanatic selected for his jury and prevent a unanimous verdict. He clearly believes his odds of that happening are much higher if the jury is drawn from the 11th District geographical jurisdiction rather than the smaller geographic boundary of Fulton County.
It continues to astound me how much the legal system allows defendents with money to second guess every single atomic decision required amid THOUSANDS of decisions throughout a prosecution and delay justice.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 6
Has Meadows conducted a poll of those judges to determine there are seven justices within the 11th District that WOULD support his argument, despite the initial panel of three judges UNANIMOUSLY rejecting his request?
Almost certainly not. Filing a motion for rehearing en banc is pretty standard practice when you lose in your appellate panel. They're almost never, ever granted - fewer than 1% of cases in the federal courts get en banc rehearings. But it's probably malpractice for an attorney not to give it a shot, unless the client is done with the case. They're not very difficult or expensive to prepare or submit, so there's very little cost to the client - and in the odd event that the motion is granted, it can turn a loss into a win. This is a pretty routine motion, and will be likely be dispensed with after cursory review - it won't consume a whole lot of judicial resources.
