We tend to assess the actions of others through the prism of our own interactions with them. Were they nice? Were they accommodating? Were they dismissive—did they refuse an autograph for your kid? Did they look at you as if you had four heads and, if so, did you deserve it? And when you have had the privilege of meeting, and speaking with, public figures, you are sometimes asked to make judgments about something newsworthy that they've done. In responding, you are likely influenced by how they acted with you in some unrelated situation.

Full disclosure: For a book I was writing at the time ("Blindfolds Off: Judges On How They Decide" (ABA Publ., 2014)), I interviewed Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. regarding his granting a motion to set aside the conviction of the long-serving and hugely popular Alaska Senator Ted Stevens amid extensive government misconduct committed during his corruption prosecution. Misconduct, to be clear, which took place in Judge Sullivan's courtroom. Although initially hesitant, Judge Sullivan had been gracious to me in the extreme.

The interview, however, was extremely frustrating for me. I would ask the same question over and over using different words, as litigators are trained to do. In essence, one of my key questions was "Did you believe Senator Stevens was innocent?" But, of course, I was speaking not only to a judge, but to a judge who by that time had spent almost 30 years on the bench, in the District of Columbia no less. He answered; but he never directly answered my question. The judge remained uncommonly pleasant, but exhaustingly silent on that question. Oh how I wished that we had shared a bottle of wine before the interview. In vino veritas. Maybe!

Some weeks later I sent Judge Sullivan the transcribed interview. In rereading it, all I could think was, if he and I were CIA agents in Afghanistan and he was captured and terrorists demanded to know if I was also an agent, I'd sleep very well. Judge Sullivan doesn't give it up.

* * *

On May 8, The New York Times headline read "U.S. Drops Michael Flynn Case … ." I suppose that's technically true. The article didn't say that the Flynn case was dismissed. Indeed, it hasn't been. The Justice Department clearly has no authority to dismiss a pending criminal case—particularly after a guilty plea has been entered by the defendant. All it can do is "ask" the court to dismiss the case. Given who the judge is, the Justice Department can't be too certain of the outcome or what will happen along the way, and probably won't be sleeping easily while awaiting the judge's decision.

The earlier Stevens case is meaningful history, and a meaningful lesson. Because of the government's Brady misconduct there, Judge Sullivan didn't merely dismiss the case upon the government's motion. He held two prosecutors in contempt and demanded an affidavit from Attorney General Mukasey himself (although he relented when Mukasey left office). Think about that! Then, even though a new administration, and thus a new Attorney General (Holder), advised that he would conduct an internal investigation of what had happened, Judge Sullivan appointed his own special investigator to examine the case—one with no ties to the Justice Department.

It is not too often that the government will move to dismiss a case, but when it does the judge typically grants the government's request—somewhat perfunctorily. Here, though, Flynn has pleaded guilty and cooperated with the government in an investigation that led to the president's impeachment. And yet, as part of the president's campaign to discredit Robert Mueller's investigation (the genesis of the Flynn prosecution), President Trump, referring to the investigating FBI personnel as "human scum," has applauded Attorney General Barr's request for the extraordinary and likely unprecedented, decision to seek dismissal of a case where the defendant has actually pleaded guilty. Was the president applauding Barr for having done what the president basically asked him to do (even if in words unspoken)?

As a terribly disappointed alumnus of the Justice Department, I am sad to say I don't think we can rely on the integrity of the Department's decision-making in this case. Many members of the criminal bar, typically pleased by the dismissal of any case when overreaching or possible Brady violations by a prosecutor are implicated—and, one must admit, they may have occurred here on the part of the Mueller team—are troubled greatly by Barr's decision. Gerald Lefcourt, though, one of the defense bar's leading lights who is often all about Brady, nonetheless says this: "For the first time in a life of anti-gov cases representing many dissidents—the Chicago 8, Panthers, SDS, Abbie Hoffman and the Weathermen—I never believed the Government to be totally lawless. But we are now and have become a banana republic."

Still, at the end of the day, the case will likely be dismissed. A judge can't really require a prosecutor to pursue a case that he maintains isn't legally justifiable. Here, after all, the current prosecutors say Flynn's lies to the FBI weren't truly "material" to an investigation—ergo, there was no crime of false statement. Still, I suspect Judge Sullivan won't let this go quietly into the night. If he thinks something happened that shouldn't have happened once Attorney General Barr took full control of the investigation after Mueller left office—that improper influences were brought to bear—he won't simply let it die. That's who he is, and his past actions show us that.

Judge Sullivan, as I said, can be frustrating indeed if you're trying to get inside his head—as the commentating criminal bar members (and frankly the general public) are trying to do now (and as I did some years back). Yes, he may be disturbed if he believes that the exculpatory material produced by Special Counsel Mueller's team was insufficient (concerning what the FBI's goal with Flynn was), and he may, now and at the same time, be troubled by the dismissal motion. My sense, however, is that whatever he does will be what he thinks is just, regardless of the political machinations and all the hubbub. He's not someone who puts his licked finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. Indeed, Brendan Sullivan (no relation), one of the best trial attorneys around and who acted as counsel for Senator Stevens, says this: "Judge Sullivan is the best of the best … . He stated early in U.S. vs Senator Stevens: 'I can guarantee you, that in my courtroom you will receive a fair trial.' He listens carefully to the parties, and relies upon his common sense and experience to do justice."

In other words, if Judge Sullivan thinks there was an injustice before or has been an injustice now, or both, if he thinks there was wrongdoing, if he thinks there was improper and undue influence, he will act. There will be no banana republic in Judge Sullivan's courtroom. Of that I am certain.

If Attorney General Barr is ever sitting in Judge Sullivan's courtroom, particularly if it's on the witness stand, he will not likely be concerned that he will be directed to prosecute the case. But he ought to be sure to bring his handkerchief anyway, if only to wipe his forehead.

Like I said before: In trying to assess what's in Judge Sullivan's mind right now, remember that Judge Sullivan doesn't "give it up." Except in the courtroom, that is.

Joel Cohen, a former federal prosecutor, practices white-collar criminal defense at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, He is the author of "Blindfolds Off: Judges on How They Decide" (ABA Publ., 2014). He is an adjunct professor at both Fordham and Cardozo Law Schools.