Hmm. I'm not much liking the sound of this. It seems that the only hope of a conviction is going to be if Cannon gets replaced.

Maybe not. She didn't rule that the PRA decisions are unreviewable or that the charges need to be dropped. She seems to still be proceeding to a trial, and if there's a trial then the defendant could be acquitted or convicted.

That's what's so crazy about this. This is a legal question, not a factual one. She can decide this issue. She's the one who's supposed to decide this issue. And she's supposed to decide before the trial.

Sometimes you have contingent jury instructions that come into play based on a factual dispute ("If you find the defendant knew the gun was loaded, apply X standard; if you find the defendant did not know the gun was loaded but should have checked, apply Y standard"). So you ask the parties to proffer jury instructions for both possible decision branches. But not for different legal theories - because the judge is supposed to decide which legal argument is correct. Before the trial.