New Yorkers are facing a new chapter in the United States Department of Justice’s pending criminal case against Mayor Adams.
Presently, the chattering class is outraged that a Trump government dismissal of Adams’ criminal case, without prejudice, will jeopardize NYC, believing Adams will rollover for President Trump on anything near and dear to Trump. With it comes an implied threat that if Adams does not comply with Trump’s policies his criminal case will be restored.
Through Adams’ eyes, this is a deal almost too tasty to refuse. The benefits of a dismissal are that Adams avoids a trial, stops mounting unpaid and future legal fees, and if convicted, serving a potential prison sentence. Now, the legal issues of a dismissal without prejudice.
According to federal rules and cases, the government has almost the unfettered right to seek a dismissal of a criminal case, without prejudice, and a dismissal motion is usually granted by a judge.
But, Adams’ case is unique, with the odor of political gymnastics raising eyebrows. For instance, it is unheard of when seven career government prosecutors refuse an attorney general’s direction to dismiss a criminal case and resign their positions instead.
President John F. Kennedy would have called their refusal a Profile in Courage moment.
Ed Murrow, the renowned broadcast journalist, speaking out against government repression in the 1950s, said, “. . . This is no time for those who oppose [an administration’s] methods to keep silent . . . We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.”
These magnificent seven, stood up and dissented.
Danielle Sassoon, the former — courageous — acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, with the six other government attorneys placed their careers on the line refusing to bend to the Justice Department and not file Adams’ motion.
Sassoon in her resignation letter to the attorney general laid out in detail a well-reasoned legal and factual argument why Adams’ indictment must not be dismissed. Sassoon’s letter shreds the Justice Department’s unsupported generalized motion that Adams’ criminal case should be dropped, writing that it is meritorious and indeed, must be prosecuted.
For acting with integrity and on a principle, there is a price. The attorneys who stood up are now on a journey into uncharted waters, where retaliation will top the agenda.
Kennedy’s and Murrow’s wisdom means, there are consequences for opposing governmental injustice.
The payback has started. Emil Bove, acting deputy attorney general, notified objecting prosecutors who had not resigned were being placed on administrative leave for their “insubordination” and will be investigated. For Sassoon, her conduct will be evaluated. All prosecutors will face the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility — guaranteed a preordained adverse finding — resulting in potential future professional ramifications for these government attorneys.
The government attorneys who objected to this dismissal motion are without question correct.
Bove justified the Adams motion as necessary because of unique circumstances. Without any supporting facts alleging, political impropriety, unacceptable public safety threats, national security concerns, and the potential failure of not executing federal immigration initiatives and policies, all of which will have an impact on Adams’ ability to govern NYC.
Bove’s motion rests a public be damned attitude with concocted reasons, eliminating any public policy concerns.
We are the government. We can do this.
Not so fast. Justice and judges are not blind. Standing in Bove’s way, is Manhattan Federal Judge Dale E. Ho, whose judicial role is not to be a rubber stamp automatically granting this motion, and must consider if a dismissal of the indictment is warranted.
Primarily, Ho has the discretion to determine whether the motion “is clearly contrary to manifest public interest,” and did the government act in good faith dismissing Adams’ case. The only way we will learn the real reasons for this dismissal-deal is if Ho — exercising judicial oversight — orders a hearing to determine if a dismissal of Adams’ indictment is in the public interest.
At a hearing Ho may scrutinize the Adams-Justice Department bargain, inquiring if the motion affects Adams’ due process rights; Adams’ understanding what the dismissal means; what Adams’ compliance with the deal means, and Adams’ understanding what will occur if the government restores the criminal case, perhaps on a whim.
The decision is in Ho’s judicial hands to decide if justice will prevail.
As a former prosecutor, I stand with the government attorneys whose refusal is in the interest of justice.
Kennedy and Murrow would be proud. We should be. Thank you to these brave attorneys.
Kriss, a New York City attorney, is a former Brooklyn assistant district attorney and former NYPD deputy commissioner for trials.
