There are fair-minded people who are concerned about the Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss the Michael Flynn case. And for many, it’s more than concern. For example, a group of former prosecutors were so outraged by the decision, that they wrote a letter asking for the Attorney General’s resignation because the motion to dismiss, they believed, “undermined [DOJ’s] mission to ensure equal justice under the law.”Let me know your thoughts.
For prosecutors legitimately concerned about equality under the law — to be sure, a hallmark of any legitimate justice system — there are bigger issues to be angry about than the dismissal of one case charging a relatively minor crime.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Good to see you're a "pleaded" and not a "pled" man, David!
ReplyDelete#pled4life
ReplyDelete“Under Rule 48, there is a strong presumption in favor of a no-prejudice dismissal unless the circumstances are ‘exceptional,’ such as where a dismissal without prejudice would result in harassment of the defendant or would otherwise be contrary to the manifest public interest.” United States v. Borges, 153 F. Supp. 3d 216, 219 (D.D.C. 2015). I believe the law affords Judge Sullivan the authority to protect the public's interest and determine whether Barr is doing "justice" or Trump's bidding by examining the Justice Department’s rationale in open court. Remember, the Flynn dismissal motion comes after AG Barr (1) distorted the Mueller report findings allowing Trump to set the narrative for the "Russian Hoax"; (2) lent credence to the disproven and false narrative that the Obama Justice Department illegally spied on the Trump campaign; (3) has been pushing an investigation for the sole purpose of creating doubt about Russian interference in the 2016 campaign; and (4) ordered the Roger Stone prosecutors to ask a federal court to reduce the sentence the lawyers had initially recommended. In both the Stone and Flynn prosecutions, AG Barr undercut the work of career prosecutors to protect an ally of the President. Let's see if Judge Sullivan is permitted to protect our interest.
ReplyDeleteMr. Sloman,
ReplyDeleteAG Barr "undercut" carreer prosecutors on the Flynn case???
Unbelievable!
They ***deserve*** to be undercut and much worse because they violated a court order to turn over Brady and Giglio, and in the process General Flynn's constitutional rights. And just months ago, the career prosecutor lied in writing saying everything had been turned over!
Um.....hello? Were you aware of that?
Or are you arguing the new disclosures, which should have been turned over in 2017, are neither Brady or Giglio????
Love to hear your response...all the articles I read from those critical ***totally ignore*** the brady/giglio issue.
Mr. Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThose issues were all litigated. Judge Sullivan issued a 92-page order denying Flynn's motion. The government's rule 48 motion has nothing to do with any Brady or Giglio violations. It reasons that since there was no open investigation on Flynn, the FBI should not have been able to interview him on what he told Kislyak. That makes no sense.
Mr. Sloman,
Delete"Those issues were all litigated. Judge Sullivan issued a 92-page order denying Flynn's motion."
Um...wrong. What you havent been following the case? Sullivans 92 page order was issued dec 16 2019 at de 144. There have literally been tons of disclosures since, after the review of the outside USAO uncovered the brady either intentionally suppressed or negligently withheld. There are new motions to dismiss that are pending!! Check the docket!
Yes the doj motion seeks dismissal for reasons independence of the brady violations. But they are there!
When you research the case and review all of the new disclosures after the 92 page order, PLEASE ***as i stated earlier*** explain why it is not Brady/giglio if that is your position.
If you concede it is, and the prior line prosecutor both violated a court order and lied when he said in writing prior to the 92 page order all was turned over, surely justice requires a dismissal?
Looking forward to your response, but assuming you wont. Every article i read people like you assume barr is corrupt but ignore the ***pending*** brady issues. Now i know at least wrt you that it is because you werent even aware they existed!
The appropriate sanction for a Brady violation depends on the nature and extent of the suppressed evidence. Apparently, the Justice Department did not consider them very serious otherwise the dismissal motion would have cited to them.
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson wrote, “The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” AG Barr violates that sacred duty by using the majesty of the Justice Department to help no one other than friends of the President.
"Apparently, the Justice Department did not consider them very serious otherwise the dismissal motion would have cited to them."
ReplyDeleteTotal speculation. A better guess/explanation is Barr chose not to go out of his way to throw a DOJ prosecutor under the bus publicly, when there was another sufficient reason to seek dismissal (no materiality). Surely you heard Boente, who might have been part of the suppression effort, was just asked to resign.
And in any event, I asked you twice whether the newly disclosed evidence was Brady/Giglio. You are an expert on those issues. ***Twice you have gone out of your way to not answer.*** What a joke. You wax about justice and offer platitudes yet you wont even offer a opinion about whether the violation here is serious enough to warrant dismissal.
Clearly you want to ignore/sidestep the issue like every other lib out there. Your exchange with me totally proves it. Have a nice day.
Let's assume the newly disclosed evidence was Brady/Giglio. The remedy would unlikely be dismissal. Have I answered your artificial issue?
ReplyDeleteThe real issue is whether the law permits Judge Sullivan to try to get to the bottom of what is going on? I believe that Judge Sullivan not only has the authority but also the obligation to try to sort it all out. If, at the end of those hearings, the record confirms what the publicly available facts already so clearly suggest—namely, that dismissal of this case would harm, not further, the “public interest in the fair administration of criminal justice”—then the law is also clear on what happens next: The government’s motion must be denied.
Have a nice night.
The violation of a criminal defendant's constitutional rights and a court order is an "artificial issue"?
DeleteWow.
From a former us atty no less.
I have nothing in response,so your words will be the last in our exchange.
11:43 Cops gonna cop...
ReplyDelete