More on the Flynn case

[Lazaran]

So why does Rule 48(a) require leave of court to dismiss an indictment?

Yeah, WHY THE HELL ISN'T HE FOLLOWING ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT???

There must be a very good reason to defy the DOJ and risk impeachment. I wonder what it could be??? Hmmmmm.

Could it be the same reason a couple thousand former DOJ officials said Barr should resign for moving to drop the Flynn case without justification???

Could it be because the prosecutors assigned to Flynns case wouldn't sign off on the order to drop the case???

Could it be that Flynn is guilty as sin and deserves to go to prison???

So many questions.

 

[Sean]

Ooh, CJ and Tim. This is gonna be funny.

 

[cinnefille]

Ooh, CJ and Tim. This is gonna be funny.

??
did CJ pee in your pool too?

 

[doowdniw]

It's an implied admission of the court's jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction over what? The case before the court, the parties, the subject matter? Pretty sure that was already established. Were there challenges to the court's jurisdiction?

 

[Rightguide]

That's the can-you-Google-law-dictionary answer.

Here's SCOTUS' answer in the context of Rule 48a.



Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n.15, 98 S. Ct. 81, 85 (1977).

Maybe the issue will ultimately be decided in Flynn's favor. There are dicta in some opinions suggesting that. But there's dictum suggesting Flynn is screwed, too.

I already posted about the Rinaldi case and how it applies to this case weeks ago.

Check my thread on the subject.

 

[HisArpy]

So why does Rule 48(a) require leave of court to dismiss an indictment?

It's really a question of whether the prosecution can TELL the court what to do or not. What's interesting is that the court has discretionary power of it's own and no one is talking about that.

A court can dismiss a case in the interests of justice at any time. I've actually been able to get the court to do this on occasion - most recently in an auto accident case where the offending driver had insurance but, due to a mistake by the investigating officer, got charged with misdemeanor hit & run. We filed a declaration with the court, the court read the declaration, asked if the victim had been fully compensated by the then existing insurance and then dismissed the case in the interests of justice.

The court did this over the prosecutors objection. It was able to do it because no one who appears before the court can TELL the court what to do or not do. The court has to obey the law and the law allows for the court to dismiss whenever it's appropriate. As it was in the case I mentioned above - no one needed a great grandmother to go to jail for 6 months for an offense that wasn't really committed after the victim had been made whole. To require the court go forward with a trial while knowing that is just silly.

The Flynn case is the same issue. The parties are telling the court they've resolved their differences and they'd like a dismissal in the interests of justice. It is up to the court to grant that dismissal because the parties cannot TELL the court what to do. Thus, leave of the court is required. That the court hasn't granted that dismissal is where the oddball crap is coming from. If the parties don't want to pursue the case any further because of government misconduct that will inevitably result in a reversal of whatever the trial court does, what is the point in the court continuing with it?

Finally, for those jokers who will rebut with the now standard "but he pleaded guilty TWICE" meme; we don't put people in jail because they confess to a crime. We put people in jail who COMMIT crimes. The evidence in Flynn's case clearly shows that he didn't commit a crime and that the government manufactured evidence and a case against him while knowing he didn't commit a crime. A confession to an event that didn't occur isn't evidence of a crime.

 

[HisArpy]

??
did CJ pee in your pool too?

Sean doesn't have a pool, he craps directly into the pipe sans toilet bowl.

 

[cjh]

I already posted about the Rinaldi case and how it applies to this case weeks ago.

Check my thread on the subject.

Heh.

I don't know why you chose to cite a law dictionary and not the Rinaldi opinion, then.

SCOTUS made clear there is no clear precedent. We're in uncharted waters.

 

[Sean]

Heh.

I don't know why you chose to cite a law dictionary and not the Rinaldi opinion, then.

SCOTUS made clear there is no clear precedent. We're in uncharted waters.

You know that's Vettebigot, right?

 

[HisArpy]

Heh.

I don't know why you chose to cite a law dictionary and not the Rinaldi opinion, then.

SCOTUS made clear there is no clear precedent. We're in uncharted waters.

We actually aren't. Where we are is that we have a rogue court that won't obey the law.

"Leave of the court" isn't a catch-all phrase designed to let the court do whatever the hell it wants.

For instance, why is the court so uptight about Flynn possibly committing perjury and contempt yet it's not even discussing the prosecuting attorneys who withheld evidence despite the court ordering them to turn it over?

Why is only 1 side going through this bullshit? Why is the court so focused on punishing THE VICTIM and not caring about punishing the perpetrators who actually DID act in contempt of court and commit perjury?

 

[cjh]

It's really a question of whether the prosecution can TELL the court what to do or not. What's interesting is that the court has discretionary power of it's own and no one is talking about that.

A court can dismiss a case in the interests of justice at any time. I've actually been able to get the court to do this on occasion - most recently in an auto accident case where the offending driver had insurance but, due to a mistake by the investigating officer, got charged with misdemeanor hit & run. We filed a declaration with the court, the court read the declaration, asked if the victim had been fully compensated by the then existing insurance and then dismissed the case in the interests of justice.

The court did this over the prosecutors objection. It was able to do it because no one who appears before the court can TELL the court what to do or not do. The court has to obey the law and the law allows for the court to dismiss whenever it's appropriate. As it was in the case I mentioned above - no one needed a great grandmother to go to jail for 6 months for an offense that wasn't really committed after the victim had been made whole. To require the court go forward with a trial while knowing that is just silly.

The Flynn case is the same issue. The parties are telling the court they've resolved their differences and they'd like a dismissal in the interests of justice. It is up to the court to grant that dismissal because the parties cannot TELL the court what to do. Thus, leave of the court is required. That the court hasn't granted that dismissal is where the oddball crap is coming from. If the parties don't want to pursue the case any further because of government misconduct that will inevitably result in a reversal of whatever the trial court does, what is the point in the court continuing with it?

Finally, for those jokers who will rebut with the now standard "but he pleaded guilty TWICE" meme; we don't put people in jail because they confess to a crime. We put people in jail who COMMIT crimes. The evidence in Flynn's case clearly shows that he didn't commit a crime and that the government manufactured evidence and a case against him while knowing he didn't commit a crime. A confession to an event that didn't occur isn't evidence of a crime.

He pleaded under oath. He's committed perjury, which is a crime in its own right. And he's the wrong defendant to argue he's unsophisticated and had crappy public defenders, so he shouldn't be accountable for lying under oath.

As best as I can tell, it looks like the answer depends upon the extent to which the appeals court--or SCOTUS--will permit a trial court to substitute its judgment for the executive branch's in the name of protecting the public interest.

 

[cjh]

We actually aren't. Where we are is that we have a rogue court that won't obey the law.

"Leave of the court" isn't a catch-all phrase designed to let the court do whatever the hell it wants.

For instance, why is the court so uptight about Flynn possibly committing perjury and contempt yet it's not even discussing the prosecuting attorneys who withheld evidence despite the court ordering them to turn it over?

Why is only 1 side going through this bullshit? Why is the court so focused on punishing THE VICTIM and not caring about punishing the perpetrators who actually DID act in contempt of court and commit perjury?

I agree that the trial court does not have wide-open discretion. Separation-of-powers issues probably limit it more than in many other instances, such as whether to permit a complaint to be amended.

But there are no clearly-defined boundaries yet. Up to this point, SCOTUS has declined the opportunity to do so.

 

[doowdniw]

We actually aren't. Where we are is that we have a rogue court that won't obey the law.

"Leave of the court" isn't a catch-all phrase designed to let the court do whatever the hell it wants.

For instance, why is the court so uptight about Flynn possibly committing perjury and contempt yet it's not even discussing the prosecuting attorneys who withheld evidence despite the court ordering them to turn it over?

Why is only 1 side going through this bullshit? Why is the court so focused on punishing THE VICTIM and not caring about punishing the perpetrators who actually DID act in contempt of court and commit perjury?

Which law(s) is Judge Sullivan not obeying (violating)?

 

[Lazaran]

We actually aren't. Where we are is that we have a rogue court that won't obey the law.

"Leave of the court" isn't a catch-all phrase designed to let the court do whatever the hell it wants.

For instance, why is the court so uptight about Flynn possibly committing perjury and contempt yet it's not even discussing the prosecuting attorneys who withheld evidence despite the court ordering them to turn it over?

Why is only 1 side going through this bullshit? Why is the court so focused on punishing THE VICTIM and not caring about punishing the perpetrators who actually DID act in contempt of court and commit perjury?

You're accusing Judge Sullivan of violating the law, you're declaring that prosecutors are guilty of perjury and contempt of court, you're exonerating Flynn, and you're blessing Barrs actions.

Who the hell needs the DOJ or the judicial system when all we have to do is ask you to adjudicate what is criminal behavior worthy of prosecution and conviction.

I know, let's name you Supreme Arbiter of Justice so you can intervene whenever you determine that a miscarriage of justice is being perpetrated in specific cases.
The Supreme Court would be subordinate to you, and your ruling would be final.

Yeah, let's do that.....

 

[HisArpy]

He pleaded under oath. He's committed perjury, which is a crime in its own right. And he's the wrong defendant to argue he's unsophisticated and had crappy public defenders, so he shouldn't be accountable for lying under oath.

As best as I can tell, it looks like the answer depends upon the extent to which the appeals court--or SCOTUS--will permit a trial court to substitute its judgment for the executive branch's in the name of protecting the public interest.

Confessing to a crime that didn't occur isn't always a crime if the confession was the result of coercion.

a finding of coercion need not depend upon actual violence by a government agent; a credible threat is sufficient. As we have said, "coercion can be mental as well as physical, and . . . the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition."

Arizona v. Fulminate 449 US 279 (1990)

It's fairly obvious in this case that Flynn's confession was the result of coercion in that the government was going to persecute his family unless he confess and agreed to the plea deal. The plea based on that confession was the direct result of that coercion. As such, the plea agreement cannot be allowed to be the basis for punishment because such punishment violated the principles inherent in our justice system and under our Constitution and laws.

Our decisions under [the 14th] Amendment have made clear that convictions following the admission into evidence of confessions which are involuntary, i.e., the product of coercion, either physical or psychological, cannot stand. This is so not because such confessions are unlikely to be true but because the methods used to extract them offend an underlying principle in the enforcement of our criminal law: that ours is an accusatorial and not an inquisitorial system—a system in which the State must establish guilt by evidence independently and freely secured and may not be coercion prove its charge against an accused out of his own mouth.

Rogers. v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534 (1961)

 

[HisArpy]

I agree that the trial court does not have wide-open discretion. Separation-of-powers issues probably limit it more than in many other instances, such as whether to permit a complaint to be amended.

But there are no clearly-defined boundaries yet. Up to this point, SCOTUS has declined the opportunity to do so.

This is not true. There is an entire body of law from SCOTUS decisions on what trial courts can and cannot do. For instance, the trial court cannot instruct a jury to return a guilty verdict no matter how overwhelming the evidence against the accused.


The question here is whether the fundamental fairness doctrine allows the court to punish the victim of unlawful conduct that resulted in a false confession/plea. There's an entire body of case law that says it cannot because both the 6th Amendment and the 14th Amendment prohibit it.

 

[HisArpy]

Which law(s) is Judge Sullivan not obeying (violating)?

What I said was that we have a rogue court that's not obeying the law. The law which in this case is established US Supreme Court precedent.

 

[phrodeau]

Confessing to a crime that didn't occur isn't always a crime if the confession was the result of coercion.



It's fairly obvious in this case that Flynn's confession was the result of coercion in that the government was going to persecute his family unless he confess and agreed to the plea deal. The plea based on that confession was the direct result of that coercion. As such, the plea agreement cannot be allowed to be the basis for punishment because such punishment violated the principles inherent in our justice system and under our Constitution and laws.

Persecute his family? Like say bad things about them on Twitter?

 

[HisArpy]

Persecute his family? Like say bad things about them on Twitter?

GOFUCKYOURSELF

 

[phrodeau]

Or was it prosecute? Why would that worry him? Are they criminals too?

 

[Lazaran]

This is not true. There is an entire body of law from SCOTUS decisions on what trial courts can and cannot do. For instance, the trial court cannot instruct a jury to return a guilty verdict no matter how overwhelming the evidence against the accused.


The question here is whether the fundamental fairness doctrine allows the court to punish the victim of unlawful conduct that resulted in a false confession/plea. There's an entire body of case law that says it cannot because both the 6th Amendment and the 14th Amendment prohibit it.

You keep claiming that Flynn was a victim of unlawful conduct, when there is no evidence that he was anything other than a criminal working as an agent for Turkey and Russia. His lies about talking to Russian ambassador Kislyak regarding the elimination of sanctions against Russia is well documented. It was a borderline treasonous act considering Russia had just attacked the United States electoral process. His failure to disclose that he received $600,000 from Turkey to influence the Trump administration is another borderline treasonous act.

Michael Flynn is as much of a victim as Derek Chauvin is.

 

[KeithD]

We're not in the indictment or prosecution phase of the Flynn issue. He's pleaded guilty. He's been convicted. We're in the sentencing phase. Besides the fact that he's obviously guilty by what is publicly known, he committed perjury no matter which direction you want to go on this. That too is irrelevant, though. We aren't in the prosecution phase. He's convicted. We're in the sentencing phase. You can't put an apple back on the tree that's already been eaten.

 

[Conager]

I agree that the trial court does not have wide-open discretion. Separation-of-powers issues probably limit it more than in many other instances, such as whether to permit a complaint to be amended.

But there are no clearly-defined boundaries yet. Up to this point, SCOTUS has declined the opportunity to do so.

Nonsense.

Every defendant is entitled to effective counsel. That right roes not go away even if the defendant were a world-renowned trial lawyer specializing in criminal defense.

In Flynn's case his lawyers were threatened with the illegal treatment Manafort's lawyers got. If the government illegally pierces attorney-client privilege and ransacks your office and combs through your confidential files you are out of business. No one will want to have a file in your office. His attorneys committed gross malpractice. How can you advise a client to plead guilty of lying when you dont even ask for a copy of the 302 which purports to establish he lied?

 

[HisArpy]

You keep claiming that Flynn was a victim of unlawful conduct, when there is no evidence that he was anything other than a criminal working as an agent for Turkey and Russia. His lies about talking to Russian ambassador Kislyak regarding the elimination of sanctions against Russia is well documented. It was a borderline treasonous act considering Russia had just attacked the United States electoral process. His failure to disclose that he received $600,000 from Turkey to influence the Trump administration is another borderline treasonous act.

Michael Flynn is as much of a victim as Derek Chauvin is.

You either watch too much CNN or get your news straight from social media.

 

[HisArpy]

We're not in the indictment or prosecution phase of the Flynn issue. He's pleaded guilty. He's been convicted. We're in the sentencing phase. Besides the fact that he's obviously guilty by what is publicly known, he committed perjury no matter which direction you want to go on this. That too is irrelevant, though. We aren't in the prosecution phase. He's convicted. We're in the sentencing phase. You can't put an apple back on the tree that's already been eaten.

What part of "coerced confessions cannot be used against someone because it violates the 6th and 14th Amendments" didn't you understand?