The Last Refuge
Outrageous – Flynn Judge Orders Retired Judicial Ally to File Brief Supporting Prosecution of Michael Flynn…
Posted on
May 13, 2020 by
sundance
Excerpt:
Stunning and outrageous doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of this move by DC Judge Emett Sullivan in the Flynn case.
Judge Sullivan
is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.
LINK
=====
It appears to be another venal attempt to trash innocent people because they are disliked. The Judge is now acting like a rogue lawyer, trying to dredge up a series of bogus hurdles to a now dead case, the one the Lead Prosecutor dropped....., the one the DOJ dropped.
Flynn lied. Flynn admitted he lied. Flynn pled guilty to criminal charges. Why shouldn't the judge proceed with sentencing?
This is why the Democrat party is going down in flames, the determined drive to ignore and be ignorant of the Exculpatory evidence presented through legal documents, is why YOU are making a fool of yourself in your blind partisan drive.
I have posted several times the evidence that Obama officials CONSPIRED to entrap General Flynn,
they even say so in their now released memos!
Democrats are trying hard to drag this out because they don't respect the rule of law.
It's not entrapment. It's how the FBI operates and their methods are backed by the Judicial branch.
While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan, 896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d 1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).
The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).
Defendants who claim to be victims of outrageous government conduct sometimes also argue that the district court should dismiss the indictment in the exercise of its supervisory power. In the absence of a due process violation, however, a district court has no authority to dismiss an indictment on this basis. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).
This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.
www.justice.gov
