Judge Sullivan's lawyers hint at 'reason to question' DOJ's motives in new Michael Flynn case filing
Added 06-01-20 05:29:02pm EST - “Washington, D.C. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan's lawyers issued an exceedingly rare? response? on his behalf? to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, explaining that the judge? hadn't dismissed the case against former…” - Foxnews.com
CLICK TO SHARE
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2020 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.
Emmet Sullivan, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, made headlines when he decided to allow 'amicus curiae' briefs in the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn after the Department of Justice moved to dismiss the charges against him.
Washington, D.C. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan's lawyers issued an exceedingly rare response on his behalf to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, explaining that the judge hadn't dismissed the case against former national security advisor Michael Flynn -- as requested by both federal prosecutors and Flynn's lawyers -- in part because "unusual developments" provided a "reason to question" the Justice Department's motives.
Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell, filed an emergency writ of mandamus to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last month seeking the immediate removal of Sullivan from the case, saying that under appellate precedent set by the 2016 "United States v. Fokker Services" case, Sullivan or his replacement must dismiss the prosecution. Powell also cited Sullivan's bizarre comments, including his suggestion that Flynn could have been tried for "treason" and his apparent lack of familiarity with some facts of the case.
Under "Fokker," prosecutors' decision to drop a case can be overruled only in extreme cases. Powell asserted, citing the case, that a "district court cannot deny the Government’s motion to dismiss because the judge has 'a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority,' such as 'a view that the defendant should stand trial' or 'that more serious charges should be brought.'"
If you don't see any comments yet, congrats! You get first comment. Be nice and have fun.
CLICK TO SHARE