Flynn judge seeks rehearing by full appeals court after being ordered to dismiss case
(www.washingtonexaminer.com)
Comments (416)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Oh ok. Thanks for the clarification. I thought the ability to overturn the dismissal was part of that original lower court ruling. I stand corrected.
Even still, how does the amicus really have any power here beyond trying to reframe an "L" for their side in the political sense. He or Sullivan can't make up new charges beyond contempt. I would think a dismissal is a dismissal it is just waiting for a final signature and seal to be processed. So basically like you said (and I agree), just a stalling tactic for election optics.
The issue is that the DoJ has filed a motion to dismiss. This whole argument is a pissing match over this line of text
Rule 48. Dismissal
(a) By the Government. The government may,with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent.
...
Sullivan is arguing that he can withhold leave of court to grant the motion to dismiss. Flynn's counsel is arguing that there is binding precedent on what constitutes valid reasons to withhold leave of court and furthermore that constitutionally the court has no role here since there is no conflict between Flynn and the Government and the court can't just appoint an amicus to argue a case the Government doesn't want to prosecute.
Thanks for that information. This was basically my understanding of things but it is nice to have it completely condensed from someone with some degree of legal background.
I am just a simple poly sci grad from a state school. Despite trying to be creative in my thinking, I don't really see how Sullivan has a leg to stand on- and even if he did- I don't see how it ends up making a difference at all.