The law relating to writ of mandamus is unequivocal WRT the requirement that mandamus is the ONLY avenue of relief from the alleged error.
Sundance is wrong about what the court is “pinning” this case upon. It does not depend on whether Sullivan decided the motion or not, although that could be a subsidiary part of it.
It depends on whether Flynn has the right to appeal if and when he is sentenced. And Flynn does have the right to appeal.
This is standard, boring, mundane, non-corrupt law of mandamus, which the two judge majority evaded.
Powell has been grossly incompetent in her representation of Flynn, for a variety of reasons. She decided to make a political argument in a court of law.
Not even the most rabid Flynn supporter can deny that Flynn lied under oath to Sullivan’s face. There were multiple lies, actually. Yes, there were reasons for lying under oath, but they were still lies under oath.
There is no “I had a good reason to lie” defense to perjury. More specifically, there is no defense to perjury based on “I was trying to help my son escape legal jeopardy.”
Powell, through her gross incompetence, put Flynn in the position of committing perjury. Her shameful representation is covered under a tsunami of praise for the political argument she has made, but there is no one, not a single person (except for me) who has analyzed her representation and seen it for the shoddy and probably unethical behavior it is.
Consistent with her inept legal abilities, she sought a writ of mandamus despite the fact that she was not legally entitled to one. And this gets us to the essence of why she sought a writ, despite not having valid grounds to get one. And this is the REAL significance of timing in this case:
Powell is desperately trying to avoid the hearings where Flynn and the Covington lawyers testify. If they testify, Powell will at the very least be made to look foolish and reckless, and might very well be put in a position where she is brought up on ethical issues raised by the testimony.
Powell’s interests and Flynn’s are NOT the same at this point, and IMO never were the same.
Barr saw the peril and took Powell off the hook the first time. Now Trump will have to take her off the hook for her gross incompetence a second time.
And if Trump does not do that, Powell is in a lot of trouble.
Wait a minute! I’m all confused!
My understanding is that Powell was hired after Flynn had already submitted the guilty plea on the advice of prior counsel. His prior lawyers were compromised by prior cooperation with the prosecutors. Finally, his plea was submitted under duress of what seems to me blackmail.
As to Powell’s essentially political argument being inappropriate, how could it be avoided in a clearly political prosecution?
If she is trying to avoid having Flynn’s previous lawyers testify, that’s a smart move. Who would expect compromised, apparently malicious witnesses to provide helpful testimony?
The problems addressed in this trial will have wide-ranging repercussions: To what extent can blackmail be used in a prosecution. Are threats of bankruptcy and persecutions of family members allowed? How can a suspect be questioned without informing him that that is their intention? Is prosecution on behalf of a political campaign, or to sabotage an incoming administration okay? How about pressuring a defendant to give false testimony against their boss in exchange for leniency over trumped-up charges in a conspiracy to undermine a duly elected administration, again, based on fraudulent allegations?
I’m just a dismayed layman. Since you’re an attorney, please enlighten us.
That’s a lot of what reads like legal analysis, but totally ignores the cited case law, and the fact that the government attorneys, including the Solicitor General have argued along the same line as Powell. Are you suggesting that your line of argument is correct and that the Solicitor General is wrong?
Very interesting post.