The Department of Justice requested that the federal judge dismiss the case, but the judge adjourned the trial indefinitely.
The U.S. district judge Dale Ho stated Friday that “in light of the Government’s motion and the statements made by the parties at the conference, it’s clear that the trial in this case will not proceed on April 21.”
Ho decided to adjourn the case against Adams for an indefinite period but left the federal corruption charge hanging over the mayor’s head.
Ho has appointed a private attorney, Paul Clement from Clement & Murphy PLLC to make the case for keeping it alive. He ordered that briefs be submitted by March 7th and scheduled an oral argument tentatively on 14 March.
Bove and Adams met with Ho in New York City on Wednesday for a meeting. Ho must approve the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss Adams’ criminal case.
Ho said that he wouldn’t make a decision immediately during the hearing. He added, “I won’t shoot out of the hip on the bench.”
Bove denied that the decision to dismiss the charges was part of a “quid pro quo”, as claimed in a letter from the U.S. attorney for the Southern district Danielle Sassoon. The letter was based on Adams’ promise to the Trump administration of increased enforcement of illegal immigration. Sassoon and several members of DOJ’s Public Integrity Section resigned after receiving that letter.
Bove stated that his decision to drop charges against Adams was a “straightforward use of prosecutorial discretion”, made because Adams was unable to communicate with federal immigration authorities due to the indictment.
Ho, in a Friday letter after the hearing concluded that the government’s position deprived the public of “adversarial tests” necessary for the justice system.
Ho wrote: “Here, a recent conference clarified the respective positions of the parties, but there was no testing of the Government’s position in general or its specific request for relief.”
He added that “normally, courts are assisted in their decision-making through our adversarial test system, which is particularly useful in cases with unusual facts or cases of public importance.”
Ho asked the DOJ to present Clement with the evidence to determine if the legal standard for dismissal of the case has been met, what the consequences would be if the case was not dismissed, and the additional steps that the court should take.
Ho decided that Adams would not be required to attend any further court proceedings. This was done to accommodate Adams’ “responsibilities” and “burden of continuing court appearances”.
