Flynn Judge Picks Debevoise Lawyer to Argue Against Barr DOJ's Bid to Dump Case
Just days ago, John Gleeson of Debevoise co-authored an op-ed that noted U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan could reject the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the Flynn case and hand down a sentence.
May 13, 2020 at 07:26 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge on Wednesday appointed Debevoise & Plimpton partner John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department's move to dismiss the prosecution of Michael Flynn, the former Trump national security adviser who twice pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his past communications with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan selected Gleeson a day after signaling his interest in hearing outside views on the Justice Department's sudden abandonment of the Flynn case, a move that renewed criticism that U.S. Attorney General William Barr was intentionally trying to undermine the special counsel's Russia investigation and to interfere to protect an ally to President Donald Trump.
Gleeson, a former federal judge in Brooklyn, was among Barr's critics. Just days ago, he co-authored an op-ed in The Washington Post noting that Sullivan could reject the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the Flynn case and hand down a sentence.
"Flynn's guilt has already been adjudicated," Gleeson wrote in the op-ed with fellow Debevoise partner David O'Neil and Marshall Miller, both former high-ranking Justice Department officials. "So if the court finds dismissal would result in a miscarriage of justice, it can deny the motion, refuse to permit withdrawal of the guilty plea and proceed to sentencing."
Sullivan tasked Gleeson with advising the court whether it "should issue an order to show cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury" pursuant to a federal law that gives judges broad authority to punish "misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice."
Flynn's defense team is opposed to allowing outside voices, or amicus curiae, to weigh in on the dismissal, arguing no friend-of-the-court had a place in the high-profile prosecution.
"No further delay should be tolerated or any further expense caused to him and his defense," Flynn's defense lawyers wrote in a brief filed Tuesday. The defense lawyers have urged Sullivan to "immediately" grant the Justice Department's request to dismiss the case.
Barr has refuted broad criticism that he was acting out of bounds when his office stepped in to bring an abrupt end to Flynn's case. Earlier this year, Barr had appointed Jeffrey Jensen, the top federal prosecutor in St. Louis, to scrutinize the case. Barr has said the move to dismiss Flynn's case was made at Jensen's recommendation.
Flynn resigned as Trump's national security adviser within weeks of the inauguration amid questions about whether he misled Vice President Mike Pence about his communications during the transition with Sergey Kislyak, then Russia's ambassador to the United States.
Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 and agreed to cooperate with Robert Mueller III, the special counsel leading the Russia investigation. He apologized in open court for his action.
Flynn had been awaiting sentencing and faced anywhere from probation to six months in prison. In January, represented by new defense counsel, Flynn moved to withdraw his guilty plea. That effort had been pending at the time U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea filed papers asking Sullivan to dismiss the Flynn case with prejudice.
Barr's Justice Department now contends the FBI did not have sufficient grounds to interview Flynn in the first place, an argument that other Justice Department officials contest. A lead prosecutor on the Flynn case, Brandon Van Grack, withdrew from the prosecution shortly before Shea asked Sullivan to dismiss the case. Shea's was on the only name on the motion.
Sullivan said earlier this week he would set a briefing schedule for the filing of any friend-of-the-court briefs. The move effectively slowed down the Justice Department's effort to abandon the prosecution.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readAmir Ali, MacArthur Justice Center Director, Confirmed to DC District Court
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readConservative Boutiques That Backed Trump Reap Their Rewards
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 2Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 3Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 4Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 5UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250