If the DOJ, after the fact, admits malfeasance and states that the basis for the hearings do not constitute a crime, does that not render the process of the hearings moot for the defendant?
Judge Sullivan is considering contempt of court for the defendant’s plea, despite the prosecutors having admitted to lying to the court for the whole reason for the court process to start with.
If “not guilty” is a statement of position, then “guilty” must also be. To place the defendant under oath and interrogate him as a perjury trap (as Sullivan did in this case) is unconscionable.
To my understanding, prosecutorial misconduct is one of the few instances where all subsequent actions in court are thrown out in favor of the defendant. The malfeasance on part of the prosecution is considered to have poisoned any value in the pursuit of the trial. If this understanding is incorrect, please explain why rather than simply dismissing the point. The DOJ itself, in its motion to withdraw with prejudice, has agreed that the whole court proceedings are moot, given the bad actions of the investigators, prosecutors, and original defense team.
The definition of perjury (from dictionary.com) is “the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.” The DOJ has a motion which admits that the trial was not a legal inquiry. How can the statements be material to a non-legal inquiry?
I am not a lawyer. But the DOJ’s motion to dismiss states that there is no underlying crime to which Flynn’s supposed lies to the FBI can be material, so would not that same condition apply to the court proceedings?
I respect your opinion and say this in sincerity, with no unfriendliness or disrespect intended.
Every thing you said in this post is wrong, legally.
I completely understand how frustrated and angry people are. I am one of them.
People get the “grinds exceedingly slow” part of the saying, but they do not get the part about grinding “exceedingly fine.”
I am baffled why people freely give legal opinions when they really have no knowledge of the law in substance or procedure. Doesn’t it occur to people that they have no idea what they are talking about, but just throwing around legal terms, not knowing that large bodies of exceedingly fine law attaches to each grand principle?
BTW one of the disgraces in this country is how often courts acknowledge prosecutorial misconduct but fail to punish it. It happens literally every day, every where, all across this country, and it happens because prosecutors have been told BY THE COURTS, in effect, you will suffer no consequences for it.
It is the same as law enforcement lying. Courts simply will never call out law enforcement for lying, so LEOs lie.
I used the word “never” above, and what I really mean is rarely. But so rarely as to almost be never.