To that end, the Supreme Court has declined to construe Rule 48(a)'s "leave of court" requirement to confer any substantial role for courts in the determination whether to dismiss charges. But decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges-no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring-lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion. That language could conceivably be read to allow for considerable judicial involvement in the determination to dismiss criminal charges. Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a prosecutor to obtain "leave of court" before dismissing charges against a criminal defendant. Circuit (the appellate court with authority over Judge Sullivan) has previously explained the limited role that trial judges have in reviewing motions to dismiss: The standard that a district judge is to apply in reviewing a motion to dismiss is generally understood to give considerable deference to prosecutors. In the Flynn case, however, the presiding judge (Judge Sullivan) has taken a greater interest in the dismissal motion than is normal. In most cases, that approval is a mere formality. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), a Government motion to dismiss charges requires approval of the judge presiding over the case. In its dismissal motion, the Government explained its view that continuing the case against Flynn "would not serve the interests of justice" because it was no longer able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any statement by Flynn was "materially" false with respect to a matter under investigation. Attorney for the District of Columbia moved to dismiss the criminal case against former Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn, who had previously pleaded guilty to a single count of making a false statement to the FBI during its counterintelligence investigation into Flynn. Some background about the Flynn case: Last week, the U.S. If the Flynn case is going to serve as a precedent, then I hope the precedent will be applied evenhandedly to ensure that judges always consider crime victims' views in evaluating Government dismissal motions–rather than the ad hockery that this case seems to be producing. My suggestion seemed to have gained little traction then. More than a decade ago, I called for careful review of Government dismissal motions in cases in which crime victims' interests might be at stake. While Judge Sullivan may have been acting within his authority to seek an amicus view, this is a curious case in which to exercise such detailed scrutiny over Government dismissal motion. In fact, yesterday Judge Sullivan appointed an amicus curiae (an experienced former federal judge) to file a brief in opposition to the Government's motion. John Gleeson, the former judge who examined the DOJ's motion, issued a scathing brief in June saying the department "engaged in highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the President.The Government's motion to dismiss charges against former national security advisor Michael Flynn seems to have drawn more-than-ordinary scrutiny from D.C. Sullivan also planned to hold a hearing on the motion that was originally scheduled for July. The case will now go back to US District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who had previously asked a veteran former judge and prosecutor to review the DOJ's motion to dismiss. "We also decline to mandate that the case be reassigned to a different district judge, because Petitioner has not established a clear and indisputable right to reassignment. "As to Petitioner's first two requests - to compel the immediate grant of the Government's motion, and to vacate the District Court's appointment of amicus - Petitioner has not established that he has 'no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires,'" Monday's 8-2 ruling said. But the full panel of judges decided to review Flynn's case last month, marking a potential turning point in the proceedings, because the panel consists of more judges appointed by Democratic presidents (7) than those appointed by Republicans (3). It often indicates a user profile.Ī three-judge panel from the DC circuit court of appeals initially ruled in Flynn and the DOJ's favor and ordered a lower court judge to toss out the case against the former national security adviser. Account icon An icon in the shape of a person's head and shoulders.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |