|
How A Plea Reversal From Michael Flynn Could Uncover More Federal Corruption
[The Federalist] On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.Just a week ago, and thus before Sullivan quietly directed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team to provide Flynn’s attorneys "any exculpatory evidence," Washington Examiner columnist Byron York detailed the oddities of Flynn’s case. The next day, former assistant U.S. attorney and National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy connected more of the questionable dots. York added even more details a couple of days later. Together these articles provide the backdrop necessary to understand the significance of Sullivan’s order on Friday. What’s Happened in the Michael Flynn Case So Far To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later ‐ and without explanation ‐ Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing "the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner ‐ including during plea negotiations ‐ any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment." Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it "has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material," to "submit such information to the Court for in camera review." Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: "Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law." A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens‐an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, "were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . ." Posted by: Besoeker 2018-02-19 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=508474 |