WASHINGTON - Aug. 11, 2020 - From an unusual argument before 10 different appellate judges, in a case seeking an even more unusual and perhaps even unprecedented order to prevent a judge from even considering arguments why he shouldn't dismiss a criminal conviction against Michael T Flynn, it appears that the judge will be able to hear the arguments, and perhaps even explore the circumstances under which the dismissal is sought.

These circumstances may include secret reasons, as hinted by the government during oral argument, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who has argued that federal judge Emmet G. Sullivan should be able to fully consider the situation.

Banzhaf notes that Jeffrey Wall, the acting U.S. solicitor general, suggested that there may be secret reasons for the governments unusual decision to reverse the conviction.

He confessed to the judges that the decision by Attorney General William Barr came "in the context of non-public information from other investigations." "I just wanted to make clear that it may be possible that the attorney general had before him information that he was not able to share with the court . . . and so what we put in front of the court were the reasons that we could, but it may not be the whole picture available to the executive branch."

Although federal judge Emmet G. Sullivan's decision to permit outsiders to comment on and possibly influence his ruling regarding former national security adviser Flynn might be unusual, it is certainly not unprecedented, nor is is it illegal or even illogical, says Banzhaf, who has been involved in several similar situations himself.

http://banzhaf.net/ jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com @profbanzhaf

Contact
GW LAW