| An interesting round up and analysis of current maneuvers in this case. |
[HotAir] When the Department of Justice moved to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn, that the change put Judge Emmet Sullivan in an awkward position. Sullivan had at one point during the case, and to force Flynn to keep working with prosecutors, even though the DoJ had already proclaimed themselves satisfied with his cooperation. The sudden reversal by the DoJ has lots of potential to embarrass Sullivan as people examine this case in the future.
Therefore, how surprising is it that Sullivan might want to
A federal judge overseeing the criminal case of President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn opened the door late Tuesday for legal experts and other outside parties to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to drop the case, suggesting he has at least some skepticism about the government’s argument that Mr. Flynn should never have been charged.
In a brief order, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia said he would set a schedule for outside parties to present arguments about the government’s request to dismiss the case. He did not directly address the Justice Department’s motion to drop the charge, but legal experts said he appeared open to considering not only the department’s arguments but also those who have challenged its move as politically motivated.
This is, at the very least, quite curious in a criminal prosecution at the district-court level. Amicus briefs usually don’t apply to criminal trials, although technically the Flynn case is at the sentencing phase, where other testimony might be heard on mitigation or punishment. A dismissal motion by prosecutors, however, amounts to a forfeit by the only entity with authority to pursue a case. Sullivan might not like it, but how does he sustain a prosecution without the prosecuting authority’s cooperation, regardless of how many amicus briefs might cross his threshold? Judges in the American legal system don’t have that authority, which explicitly resides in the executive branch.
|