Ryan Routh argues that Judge Aileen Cannon’s impartiality could be questioned due to her past judicial ’relationship to the alleged victim.’
Lawyers for Ryan Routh, the man charged with attempting to assassinate former President Donald Trump at his Florida golf course, asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday to recuse herself from presiding over the case due to a potential public perception of bias.
On Sept. 15, a Secret Service agent spotted the barrel of a rifle jutting through a brush-covered fence a few hundred yards away from where Trump was golfing at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach. The agent fired in the direction of the rifle, and a witness allegedly spotted a man fleeing the area on foot. Routh was arrested later in the day by officers from the Martin County Sheriff’s Office.
On Sept. 30, Routh pleaded not guilty to multiple charges, including attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal police officer, and felony weapons charges in West Palm Beach. The 58-year-old man, a roofing contractor, faces a potential life sentence if convicted.
In a motion filed in the Southern District of Florida, Routh’s lawyers argue that Cannon’s impartiality could be questioned due to her past judicial “relationship to the alleged victim.”
Cannon, a Trump appointee, presided over a 2023 case involving Trump earlier. In that case, the former president faced 40 felony counts related to his alleged retention of classified documents. Cannon ultimately dismissed the charges.
In both the 2023 case and Routh’s case, the same computerized system randomly selected Cannon to oversee the proceedings.
“Recusal by Your Honor is essential to preserve the appearance of impartiality,” the motion states.
Routh’s defense argues that the connections highlighted in the motion, combined with Trump’s status as the alleged victim in the case and his ongoing presidential campaign, could create the appearance of bias.
The motion asserts that while Cannon may indeed preside impartially, “given the heightened stakes and the public scrutiny, there should not be any doubts about even the appearance of impartiality of the presiding judge.”
