Yesterday, I blogged about the Justice Department's pending motion to dismiss in the criminal case against Mayor Adams. My argument was that the dismissal motion was easy to justify, particularly given the new Administration's change in priorities for law enforcement. I also noted that the Department's dismissal motion would be subject district court review under a deferential "public interest" standard. I also criticized those who argued that the dismissal motion was a negotiated quid pro quo between the Justice Department and Adams—a position that was unequivocally corroborated by a letter to the court from Adams's defense attorneys.
In another development yesterday, the district judge in S.D.N.Y. handling the matter (Judge Dale E. Ho) entered an order directing the parties (the Justice Department and Adams) to appear before him today to "address, inter alia, the reasons for the Government's motion, the scope and effect of Mayor Adams's 'consent in writing,' and the procedure for resolution of the motion."
In this post, I discuss what standard Judge Ho should apply in evaluating the pending dismissal motion, making three points: (1) existing Second Circuit case law is very deferential on issues relating to prosecutorial priorities, which would seem to dictate approval of the dismissal; (2) existing Second Circuit caselaw appears to improperly ignore the possibility that crime victims might exercise their congressionally protected right to be reasonable heard on dismissal motions; and (3) while some parts of the Adams prosecution appear to involve "victimless" crimes, at least one of the counts appears to involve a "victim"—specifically New York City, which has (allegedly) been defrauded of "matching funds" during the election process. If my analysis is correct, the judicial procedures for determining the dismissal will need to include the crime victim's right to confer and to be heard under the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act.
