|
2019-11-28 -Lurid Crime Tales-
|
|
Why Federal Prosecutors Now Want To Delay Michael Flynn's Sentencing
|
 [The Federalist] Late Tuesday, federal prosecutors filed a motion to cancel the briefing due in mid-December in the Michael Flynn criminal case.
In early September, D.C. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan had ordered the government to file a supplemental sentencing memorandum by December 2, 2019, and directed Flynn’s new attorney, Sidney Powell, to file a supplemental sentencing memorandum for the retired general by December 10, 2019. Judge Sullivan had then set a December 18, 2019, date for Flynn’s sentencing.
But now, after having previously argued stridently that there was no reason to delay Flynn’s sentencing, the government has asked the long-time federal judge to put both the briefing and the sentencing hearing on hold.
Government attorneys presented two justifications for the requested delay. First, they stressed that the court had not yet ruled on Flynn’s pending motion to compel the production of Brady material. As prosecutors note in the motion to delay the sentencing proceedings, Judge Sullivan had scheduled a hearing on the motion to compel for October 31, 2019, but then "canceled the hearing for the Motion to Compel because of the parties’ ’comprehensive briefing.’"
Nearly a month has passed since the original hearing date and the court has not yet ruled on Flynn’s Motion to Compel. The government’s motion, which Flynn joined, stressed that while "both parties share the Court’s goal to move this case along expeditiously[,], [t]he parties nonetheless believe that their sentencing submissions will be incomplete if they are filed prior to the Court’s issuance of its ruling on the Motion to Compel."
This explanation for the delay makes imminent sense: If the court orders the government to turn over more information it could well alter the arguments made in the sentencing memorandum. Alternatively, newly disclosed evidence may trigger other proceedings‐such as a motion to dismiss based on egregious prosecutorial misconduct‐that need resolving prior to sentencing.
What is surprising, however, is that the government agrees with this reasoning. Until now, federal prosecutors argued that the Motion to Compel is a fishing expedition and the evidence sought is immaterial to sentencing. But now, the government seems to accept the possibility that the Motion to Compel has some merit. 
|
Posted by Besoeker 2019-11-28 02:56||
||
Front Page|| [11 views ]
Top
|
|
Posted by Procopius2k 2019-11-28 06:47||
2019-11-28 06:47||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by M. Murcek 2019-11-28 08:09||
2019-11-28 08:09||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by Besoeker 2019-11-28 08:56||
2019-11-28 08:56||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by M. Murcek 2019-11-28 09:21||
2019-11-28 09:21||
Front Page
Top
|
|
00:52 Besoeker
00:41 Besoeker
|
