Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor
Michael Flynn was seeking a writ of mandamus from the District Court and it was granted. In a 2-1 decision, Judge Emmet Sullivan was ordered to dismiss the case!
|
No. 20-5143
IN RE: MICHAEL T. FLYNN, PETITIONER
Mr. Schunk, how rare was it that the court took the case and was it even more rare they granted the Writ of mandamus?
Michael Flynn was seeking THREE forms of relief:
1) an order directing the district court to grant the motion to dismiss;
2) an order vacating the amicus appointment;
3) an order reassigning the case to a different district judge
Relief was granted for orders 1 and 2......by granting 1, 3 no longer needed a ruling?
By ordering the dismissal, was the Appeals Court saying the lower court didn’t have the authority to:
A. deny the motion to dismiss
B. appointed amicus curiae
I don’t have a clue concerning Rule 48, but this doesn’t sound promising for Judge Sullivan’s actions:
“Rule 48 motions must be granted “in the overwhelming number of cases”). More specifically, “[t]he principal object of the ‘leave of court’ requirement is ... to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment“
“Rule 48 thus “gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s ... motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority.”
And the Judge’s didn’t appear happy with
“The first troubling indication of the district court’s mistaken understanding of its role in ruling on an unopposed Rule 48(a) motion was the appointment of John Gleeson to “present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion.” Order Appointing Amicus Curiae,
that role does not include designating an advocate to defend Flynn’s continued prosecution.”
This is my favorite part
“The district court’s order put two “coequal branches of the Government ... on a collision course“