Observers are buzzing about a series of events in the last 60 days in the case of Michael Flynn, the Trump national security adviser who on Dec. 1 pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI in the Trump-Russia investigation.
What Flynn watchers are noting today is that when all that happened back in 2009, Sullivan ripped into the Stevens prosecutors with an anger rarely seen on the bench.
On Dec. 12, after just a few days on the Flynn case, Sullivan, acting on his own, ordered the office of special counsel Robert Mueller "To produce to [Flynn] in a timely manner - including during plea negotiations - any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant's guilt or punishment."
While the move could be simply standard procedure for Sullivan, it was nevertheless notable because Flynn had already pleaded guilty, and, as part of that guilty plea, agreed to "Forgo the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of guilty plea."
On Jan. 31, the two sides in the case agreed to delay sentencing for Flynn until at least May. Some observers saw that as an entirely routine development in a case in which the defendant is cooperating with prosecutors on an open matter.
On the other hand, in the Flynn case, the delay took place in the context of Sullivan's evidence order, and there is no way for the public to know whether that played a role in the decision.
Is there actually not-yet-produced evidence that might help Flynn? If so, would it have any effect on the case in which Flynn has already pleaded guilty? And would it have any effect on the larger Trump-Russia investigation? There are no answers right now, but United States v. Michael Flynn remains a case to watch.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-an-unusual-turn-in-the-michael-flynn-case/article/2649272
What Flynn watchers are noting today is that when all that happened back in 2009, Sullivan ripped into the Stevens prosecutors with an anger rarely seen on the bench.
On Dec. 12, after just a few days on the Flynn case, Sullivan, acting on his own, ordered the office of special counsel Robert Mueller "To produce to [Flynn] in a timely manner - including during plea negotiations - any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant's guilt or punishment."
While the move could be simply standard procedure for Sullivan, it was nevertheless notable because Flynn had already pleaded guilty, and, as part of that guilty plea, agreed to "Forgo the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of guilty plea."
On Jan. 31, the two sides in the case agreed to delay sentencing for Flynn until at least May. Some observers saw that as an entirely routine development in a case in which the defendant is cooperating with prosecutors on an open matter.
On the other hand, in the Flynn case, the delay took place in the context of Sullivan's evidence order, and there is no way for the public to know whether that played a role in the decision.
Is there actually not-yet-produced evidence that might help Flynn? If so, would it have any effect on the case in which Flynn has already pleaded guilty? And would it have any effect on the larger Trump-Russia investigation? There are no answers right now, but United States v. Michael Flynn remains a case to watch.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-an-unusual-turn-in-the-michael-flynn-case/article/2649272
No comments:
Post a Comment