I've been following the debate between my co-bloggers David Post and Josh Blackman (and other commentators elsewhere) on the Mayor Eric Adams criminal case. Dedicated VC readers will have seen that David calls the Justice Department's decision to move to dismiss the charges an "outrageous" deal – and in an earlier post, he called it an "odious and reprehensible" deal. Josh calmly responds that this "is the sort of thing DOJ does all the time." Who's right?
As a professor who teaches criminal law (and as former federal prosecutor who cut plea deals), I will weigh in on Josh's side as a descriptive matter, without taking a position on the ultimate merits of whether the Justice Department should have moved to dismiss the charges. This motion to dismiss does not seem "outrageous" to me, particularly since the matter now goes for review by a federal judge.
Initially, exactly what has happened here needs to be clarified. David writes about "the conditions [Mayor Adams] has accepted in return for the DOJ dropping the case against him …." But the Mayor has accepted no such "conditions." This is proven by looking at the text of the Department's motion to dismiss pending before the federal district court, linked here. The motion lists no conditions on the dismissal—DOJ is simply moving to have the case dismissed, without prejudice, as is specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48. Now, to be sure, there may be a tacit recognition by the Justice Department that, going forward, the Mayor will cooperate on immigration matters. But it is well known that the Mayor is generally supportive of greater immigration restrictions. Informally recognizing the reality of the situation is not the same thing as formally imposing "conditions," as David inaccurately (in my view) describes the situation.
