After the Justice Department asked Federal District Judge Dale E. Ho to drop the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams of New York, the judge appointed a noted conservative lawyer, Paul D. Clement, to provide him with an independent legal analysis as an "amicus," or friend of the court. This is Clement's brief, filed Friday and annotated by The New York Times.
New York Times AnalysisNext »
1
The Trump administration's move to kill the Adams corruption case was assailed by critics, and by federal prosecutors in Manhattan who suggested it was part of an improper quid pro quo under which the mayor would aid Trump's immigration crackdown. Judge Ho was praised for seeking help resolving the situation from Clement, a prominent conse rvative lawyer and former U.S. solicitor general who has argued many cases before the Supreme Court.
New York Times Analysis« Previous Next »
2
The Justice Department requested that Adams's case be dismissed under Rule 48(a) of the rules governing federal prosecutions, which since the 1940s have given judges what Clement calls "an important, but limited, role" in this process: a requirement that judges approve motions to dismiss criminal cases such as this one.
3
Early on, Clement telegraphs his conclusion in his discussion of what Rule 48(a) does and doesn't permit a judge to do. He notes that the requirement for a judge to sign off on dismissal of a case does not give him or her the power to decide when a case should or shouldn't be brought. That power is vested in prosecutors as executive branch officials. But the rule does give the judge the responsibility to protect a defendant's l iberty from abuse through this process — in this case, Clement says, by ruling that Adams's case should be dismissed permanently, contrary to the temporary dismissal the government had sought.
4
The Justice Department wants Adams's case dismissed "without prejudice" — meaning that the government can reinstate the prosecution later. But as others have noted, Clement says this creates a "Sword of Damocles" potentially allowing the Trump administration to wield influence over Adams. To avoid this problem, Clement recommends that the judge, Dale E. Ho, dismiss the case "with prejudice," as in forever.
New York Times Analysis« Previous Next »
5
Clement alludes to the concerns many have expressed with how this has all played out: that Adams, with the possibility of a renewed indictment looming over him, would prioritize pleasing Trump over the interests of his constituents in New York City. Ad ams has said he always puts the city first.
6
Clement has told Judge Ho that his "primary" responsibility is not whether to approve the government's request to dismiss the case, but how. That skates over the possibility, discussed in many other cases, that there are rare times when a judge could deny a motion to dismiss, for example if a prosecutor makes such a request in bad faith, like after taking a bribe. But here, Clement highlights the reason judges really can't deny these motions as a practical matter -- because even if they do, there is no way to force prosecutors to pursue a case if they don't want to do so.
New York Times Analysis« Previous Next »
7
Fans of legal history who want a real deep dive on Rule 48(a) can read this section. Others can skip ahead.
New York Times Analysis« Previous Next »
8
The long discussion right before this paragraph concerns the differing views over the years of how much power judges actually have to stop prosecutors from dropping cases and when they can do so. In reality, Clement points out, judges have hardly ever denied prosecutors' motions to drop cases without being overturned on appeal, and those few instances when they did were extreme examples in which defendants needed to be protected from prosecutorial abuse or other harms.
New York Times Analysis« Previous Next »
9
In the Rinaldi case, the Supreme Court said that a judge's main role in overseeing efforts to drop cases is protecting defendant, perhaps in situations such as this one, when the government might let Adams off the hook but hold the threat to indict him again over his head.
New York Times Analysis« Previous Next »
10
Having dispensed with the legal analysis, Clement dives in with the history of the Adams indictment, brought last September, and the decision by the Trump administration to drop it.
New York Times Analysis« Previous Next »
11
An understated account of the uproar that ensued when a top Justice Department official, Emil Bove, ordered federal prosecutors in Manhattan to drop the Adams case, claiming it was part of the "weaponization" of prosecutorial power under President Biden. Danielle Sassoon, the interim U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, resigned rather than do so. Letters written by Bove and Sassoon on the issue were published by news outlets, including this one. Sassoon and others resigned.
New York Times Analysis« Previous Next »
12
Clement hammers home that it is the executive branch alone in our system that chooses when to prosecute, and when not to do so, which he says promotes individual liberty. Private citizens and courts can't force a prosecution, "no mat ter how clearly someone has violated a federal criminal statute." In the same way, it is the president who can decide whether to pardon federal crimes. So regardless of what anyone thinks, this suggests, the Trump administration officials can pursue the case against Adams, or drop it. It is their choice.
New York Times Analysis« Previous Next »
13
There are various reasons, Clement says, why judges can't make the government prosecute — it could simply refuse, and the case would be dismissed when the clock on the defendant's right to a "speedy trial" ran out. And even if a judge were to succeed in forcing a prosecution, the president could issue a pardon, making the effort fruitless.
14
The judge's power, he says, is basically limited to protecting a defendant by ordering that a case be dismissed permanently, without the threat of it coming back again.
New York Times Analysi s« Previous Next »
15
Judge Ho asked Clement whether the judge could consider information outside the legal filings — such as the public letters by Bove and Sassoon each alleging improprieties — before deciding whether to dismiss the case. Clement says that Ho can consider that information and even conduct an inquiry to learn more, but that he does not need to, because it is not his role to "resolve that intramural dispute" between prosecutors in New York and the Justice Department in Washington.
16
That Adams is a public official makes it even more appropriate for Ho to permanently dismiss the case, Clement says, rather than risk the mayor of New York City putting Trump over his constituents.
New York Times Analysis« Previous Next »
17
Winding up here and getting the final conclusion: Clement says that the judge can best respect the role of t he executive branch in our system, his own limited role of protecting the defendant, in this case Adams, and Adams's constituents, by dismissing the indictment permanently. And because if he tried to force a prosecution, it wouldn't work anyway.
New York Times Analysis« Previous
18
Clement to Ho: End the Adams case permanently. It seems likely the judge will take his advice, but much about this case has been unusual, so time will tell.
Comments
Post a Comment