U.S. Appeals Court Orders Judge to Dismiss Michael Flynn Case

[Igel]

75. The rule was written precisely to avoid that.

Judiciary hears cases brought by the executive. That's part of the rule. The executive withdraws, there is no constitutional authority for the judiciary to keep the case--it cannot bring a case or bring charges.

That said, there's nothing preventing the executive from bringing charges. Then, about to lose, it withdraws them. Digs a bit more. Brings them again. About to lose, it drops them. Digs a bit more, tries something else. New lawyer, new theory, better coached witnesses. Or maybe just waits a few years until memories fade. Or the defendant can't afford a good defense. Then the executive brings charges.

You see how that's unjust? And why a judge might not want to dismiss the charges? Because then it's one constitutional issue opposed to another constitutional claim--due process. The punishment levied at that point is not against the defendant, it being assumed that the prosecutor's dropping charges because its in a bad position in the trial, but against the prosecution--it has to continue the case in hopes of winning, or just bail and lose by default.

Dismissing the charges with prejudice--that's the motion before the court--makes that argument moot.

All that's left is the executive-branch claim of bringing charges for a criminal violation of the laws.

The perjury thing I consider bogus.