Judge Sullivan Scrambles For A Lifeline To Bail HIMSELF Out Of Dropped Flynn Case

Flynns case is rare, because the time between conviction and sentencing in state court is separated by days and not months. So the window is smaller.
It certainly is rare, but not for the reasons you think.

In the case you mentioned, the DA would have to explain why the evidence was not available prior to conviction. The evidence itself if exculpatory would be grounds for the judge to declare a mistrial.
What about when the DA moves to dismiss and there has been on trial yet?

Without the motion to dismiss, could a court grant a new trial or order that the matter be set on the trial docket? Wouldn't that be the most efficient use of judicial resources? Particularly when an appeal is almost certain and nothing has been decided on the merits.

If the evidence merely raises a question, such as the lab having made a mistake in a similar case would not be sufficient to delay justice. Proof of his DNA being exculpatory would be grounds for appeal.
What about cases where the DA moves to dismiss the case before sentencing?

There wouldn't be grounds for the Court to grant a new trial or set the matter on the trial docket when the case has not even gone forward on the merits???


.
 
You can withdraw a guilty plea up until sentencing.

But you have to give a good reason.
Before conviction, the plea can be withdrawn freely. After conviction, as you said, only upon showing of a good reason.

Even after sentencing it can be withdrawn, but only in the interest of justice. Such as proof of innocence, not prosecution errors.
 
You can withdraw a guilty plea up until sentencing.

But you have to give a good reason.
Before conviction, the plea can be withdrawn freely. After conviction, as you said, only upon showing of a good reason.

Even after sentencing it can be withdrawn, but only in the interest of justice. Such as proof of innocence, not prosecution errors.
What about upon a prosecutions motion to dismiss?

.
 
I know what perjury is. What is the specific perjury charge here

That Flynn admitted he lied to the FBI (and other crimes) under penalty of perjury, and then he took it back. (actually made a diametric claim)
...as does ANY criminal defendant who wants to withdraw his plea.

Jesus.

.

The difference is Flynn is trying to withdraw his plea AFTER CONVICTION.
Perfectly legal, and not too uncommon as far as withdrawing pleas is concerned. Flynn is more than justified to do so
 
Are you telling me that any defendant who withdraws a guilty plea after entering the plea and answering the judge's question in the affirmative that he pleading guilty because he is guilty and for no other reason, should be prosecuted for perjury? Is that you position?

(this is a huge trap)

.

We are talking about changing their plea AFTER conviction. They are free to do so any time before that. After conviction is when it's too late.
You can withdraw a guilty plea up until sentencing.

But you have to give a good reason.
How about two....the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence.....and they also dropped all charges.
 
You can withdraw a guilty plea up until sentencing.

But you have to give a good reason.
Before conviction, the plea can be withdrawn freely. After conviction, as you said, only upon showing of a good reason.

Even after sentencing it can be withdrawn, but only in the interest of justice. Such as proof of innocence, not prosecution errors.
What about when a prosecutor moves to dismiss?

.
 
main-qimg-0a5eeb38b606b2e7ed41e4c5774d1bf5


What about when the prosecutor moves to dismiss?

.
 
What about when the DA moves to dismiss and there has been on trial yet?

Prior to trial the prosecution can drop the charges. After the trial starts, it's in the hands of the judge.

Without the motion to dismiss, could a court grant a new trial or order that the matter be set on the trial docket? Wouldn't that be the most efficient use of judicial resources? Particularly when an appeal is almost certain and nothing has been decided on the merits.
In such a case the judge would accept the withdrawal of plea, and schedule a jury trial. He would of course remind the parties that any evidence of guilt submitted prior to withdrawal of plea would be admissible.

What about cases where the DA moves to dismiss the case before sentencing?

There wouldn't be grounds for the Court to grant a new trial or set the matter on the trial docket when the case has not even gone forward on the merits???

The judge would require the same level of evidence for the prosecution to withdraw a charge, as to make one.
 
What about upon a prosecutions motion to dismiss?

.

Again, such a change of position is subject to a perjury charge. The prosecution would have to show that they did not perjure themselves in their prior or current filings. Remember, what they file with the court is also under penalty of perjury.
 
Prior to trial the prosecution can drop the charges. After the trial starts, it's in the hands of the judge.
:laughing0301:

LINK?

In such a case the judge would accept the withdrawal of plea, and schedule a jury trial. He would of course remind the parties that any evidence of guilt submitted prior to withdrawal of plea would be admissible.
Sure. That would certainly be admissible. No argument there.

Most of the Flynn haters on this thread are calling for sentencing without a trial on the merits. Fuck letting a jury decide.

The judge would require the same level of evidence for the prosecution to withdraw a charge, as to make one.
:laughing0301:

LINK???

.
 
Again, such a change of position is subject to a perjury charge.
Why?

The prosecution would have to show that they did not perjure themselves in their prior or current filings. Remember, what they file with the court is also under penalty of perjury.
If that's true, that would explain Brandon Van Grack's abrupt and unexplained motion to withdraw.

.
 
Again, such a change of position is subject to a perjury charge. The prosecution would have to show that they did not perjure themselves in their prior or current filings. Remember, what they file with the court is also under penalty of perjury.
This says otherwise:

Prosecutors who intentionally break the law

What do you have that says prosecutors cannot move to dismiss without facing a perjury charge?


.
 
Again, such a change of position is subject to a perjury charge. The prosecution would have to show that they did not perjure themselves in their prior or current filings. Remember, what they file with the court is also under penalty of perjury.
This says otherwise:

Prosecutors who intentionally break the law

What do you have that says prosecutors cannot move to dismiss without facing a perjury charge?


.

Your own link states

After Cruz’s acquittal, the Chief Judge of the DuPage County Circuit Court appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the sheriff’s deputies. The special prosecutor expanded his investigation to include the prosecutors and ultimately returned the indictment that led to their trial.
 
Again, such a change of position is subject to a perjury charge. The prosecution would have to show that they did not perjure themselves in their prior or current filings. Remember, what they file with the court is also under penalty of perjury.
This says otherwise:

Prosecutors who intentionally break the law

What do you have that says prosecutors cannot move to dismiss without facing a perjury charge?


.

Your own link states

After Cruz’s acquittal, the Chief Judge of the DuPage County Circuit Court appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the sheriff’s deputies. The special prosecutor expanded his investigation to include the prosecutors and ultimately returned the indictment that led to their trial.

I'll just quote your final post rather than all the other garbage.

The Higher Court has given Sullivan a chance to drop this case and save face, rather than them just disgracing him
and ending the trial. However, the dens that forced Sullivan to try and keep this farce alive are gonna take a
hard hit. The Higher Court also told Barr he can submit his response to why he wants to dismiss the charges.

That court has given him an open invitation to rip the former DOJ officials and the FBI to shreds.

Sullivan can just write some nice note explaining how he got carried away and then agree with the DOJ to dismiss
the charges OR the Higher Court is gonna throw this case in the crapper. The Man's Civil Rights were violated
during the initial stages of the investigation.

It's all over but the shouting.
 
It's all over but the shouting.

Voluntary Dismissal
A case that is dismissed voluntarily is dismissed by the party that brought the case and may be dismissed with or without prejudice. A voluntary dismissal serves the interests of the prosecutor.

A prosecutor may voluntarily dismiss a case without prejudice in order to file a more or less serious case (as in the previous battery/assault example), to address a weakness or error in some part of the case (such as the evidence), or if they are not ready to go to trial at the date called by the judge.
 
Again, such a change of position is subject to a perjury charge. The prosecution would have to show that they did not perjure themselves in their prior or current filings. Remember, what they file with the court is also under penalty of perjury.
This says otherwise:

Prosecutors who intentionally break the law

What do you have that says prosecutors cannot move to dismiss without facing a perjury charge?


.

Your own link states

After Cruz’s acquittal, the Chief Judge of the DuPage County Circuit Court appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the sheriff’s deputies. The special prosecutor expanded his investigation to include the prosecutors and ultimately returned the indictment that led to their trial.
Sheriff's deputies??? They are not prosecutors.

After his acquittal? This is not a dismissal. That case went to trial.

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT A PROSECUTOR CAN FACE PERJURY CHARGES FOR DISMISSING A CASE??

The case you are talking about had misconduct, not just a blanket dismissal.

Are you admitting now that there was misconduct in Flynn's matter?



.
 
It's all over but the shouting.

Voluntary Dismissal
A case that is dismissed voluntarily is dismissed by the party that brought the case and may be dismissed with or without prejudice. A voluntary dismissal serves the interests of the prosecutor.

A prosecutor may voluntarily dismiss a case without prejudice in order to file a more or less serious case (as in the previous battery/assault example), to address a weakness or error in some part of the case (such as the evidence), or if they are not ready to go to trial at the date called by the judge.
So, when does jeopardy attach?



.
 

Forum List

Back
Top