WASHINGTON, June 16 — When Aileen Mercedes Cannon was appointed a judge by Donald Trump three years ago, she could hardly have imagined he would wind up as a defendant in her court.

Judge Cannon's assignment to preside over Trump's high-stakes trial has added another layer of controversy to the first ever federal-level criminal prosecution of a former US president.

Some legal experts have argued that Cannon should recuse herself because she has previously displayed bias towards Trump, who is accused of mishandling government secrets.

Others contend that Cannon, who was nominated to a lifetime appointment as a District Court judge by Trump in May 2020, will ensure that the former president gets a fair shake.

"It's impossible now for Trump to complain that he's got a judge that is biased against him," said Edward Foley, a constitutional law professor at Ohio State University.

Thomas Holbrook, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, said Cannon is in a "tough position."

"Almost no matter what she does, she's going to either feed into existing concerns about her potential bias or disappoint Trump supporters," Holbrook said.

Self-pardon?

Cannon was relatively young -- 38 years old -- when she was appointed to the bench by Trump.

She was confirmed by the Senate in a 56-21 vote in November 2020, just days after Trump lost the presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden.

Cannon, now 42, was randomly chosen among the active judges for the Southern District of Florida to preside over the Trump case.

Born in Cali, Colombia, Cannon grew up in Florida. Her mother immigrated to the United States from Cuba as a child.

Cannon obtained her undergraduate degree at Duke University and her law degree from the University of Michigan, routinely ranked among the top 10 law schools in the country.

A member of the conservative Federalist Society, Cannon worked for three years at a law firm in Washington and for seven years as an assistant US attorney prior to becoming a judge.

Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia University, said the presiding judge wields enormous power over a trial and plays a critical role in how it unfolds.

"Even in a run of the mill case, the judge can have a significant and sometimes even dispositive effect on proceedings," Richman said.

Cannon will set the calendar for the trial, rule on what evidence is admissible, oversee jury selection and handle what is expected to be a barrage of pre-trial motions from Trump lawyers seeking to delay the proceedings, Richman said.

The timing of the trial is key. If it is still ongoing and Trump wins the November 2024 presidential election he could conceivably pardon himself on taking office.

Reversed on appeal

Richman said it is unlikely the case will begin before next year's vote in part because it involves classified documents, raising complicated national security concerns.

"Even at best, I think an experienced judge would be hard pressed to move this case before the election," he said.

Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor, said Cannon should recuse herself from the case, but not because she was nominated by Trump.

"There are many judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans who do their job, and that includes judges who were appointed by Donald Trump," he told MSNBC.

Cannon should step aside because of her prior involvement in the case, said Weissman, who was a member of special counsel Robert Mueller's team that investigated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

After the FBI raided Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in August 2022 to recover classified documents that the former president had refused to return, Cannon was assigned to hear a lawsuit filed by Trump challenging the seizure.

She issued a number of rulings favorable to Trump that were reversed on appeal by the conservative 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a severe rebuke.

Among the rulings was her contention that special deference should be shown to Trump because he was a former president.

The three-judge 11th Circuit panel, which included two Trump appointees, shot that down.

"To create a special exception here would defy our Nation's foundational principle that our law applies 'to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank,'" the court said. — AFP