Saturday, March 6, 2021

Appeals Court Orders Judge to Approve Dismissal of Case Against Flynn

A federal appeals court on June 24 ordered the presiding judge in the case against Michael Flynn to ..

By Sunday Herald Team , in US Politics , at June 24, 2020

A federal appeals court on June 24 ordered the presiding judge in the case against Michael Flynn to grant the governments request to dismissed the charges against the former national security advisor to President Donald Trump.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a stunning development in the years-long legal saga which started with a prosecution brought by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Flynn had pleaded guilty in late 2017 to lying to the FBI, but in December 2019 moved to withdraw his plea. The Department of Justice in May moved to drop the charges against Flynn after conducting an internal review of the investigation.

Instead of approving the governments request, Judge Emmet Sullivan, in Flynns case took the extraordinary step of appointing an amicus curiae (friend of the court) to argue against the prosecution and to determine whether Flynn should be held in contempt for reversing his plea. Flynns attorneys filed an emergency petition for a writ on mandamus with the appeals court to order Sullivan to approve the motion to dismiss the case. The appeals court heard oral arguments from attorneys for Flynn, Sullivan, and the Justice Department last week.

“Upon consideration of the emergency petition for a writ of mandamus, the responses thereto, and the reply, the briefs of amici curiae in support of the parties, and the argument by counsel, it is ordered that Flynns petition for a writ of mandamus be granted in part,” the appeals court order stated. “The district court is directed to grant the governments motion to dismiss.”

One of the three judges on the appeals court panel dissented from the decision. U.S. Circuit Court Judge Robert Wilkins had already indicated his opposition to Flynns request during the oral arguments. Wilkins argued , in parRead More From Source

[contf] [contfnew]

The Epoch Times

[contfnewc] [contfnewc]