[Lurking Libertarian]

Sullivan is making it all up at this point.

Not entirely. Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure says that, "The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint."

So Sullivan's permission is required to drop the charges. His grounds for refusing permission, if he does, may be reviewed on appeal, but the rule certainly gives him some kind of role.

[Scram1]

What is he going to do if the other court refuses the use of the Amicus briefs?

[freeandfreezing]

...but the rule certainly gives him some kind of role.

The case law however, including cases that are binding on Judge Sullivan's court, don't allow him to do much other than dismiss the case. His role should be extremely limited in the current situation.

[Fido969]

“Leave of the court” is specifically limited to protecting the defendant.

[chaosagent]

So if Sullivan doesn’t give them permission to drop the case, what can he do?

How can he force the DOJ to prosecute the case?

Can he, in essence, prosecute it himself, by just declaring Flynn guilty and sentencing him?

[lepton]

So Sullivan’s permission is required to drop the charges. His grounds for refusing permission, if he does, may be reviewed on appeal, but the rule certainly gives him some kind of role.

---

That’s always been taken as perfunctory - a requirement that the judge has to be officially informed, and administratively processed. His role is to sign off that he’s been notified, and process the paperwork necessary to close the case.

[MortMan]

Prior decisions have restricted the “leave of the court” to preventing the prosecution from charging, dismissing, recharging, etc. The dismissal sought is with prejudice - meaning Flynn cannot be recharged - and was motioned for due to prosecutorial malfeasance as identified by the DOJ’s independent reviewer.

Sullivan’s role is to protect the defendant from further abuse. He has no reason and no leeway on this matter.