Mayor Adams’ Legal Team Seeks Dismissal of Charges, Citing Prosecutorial Misconduct and Leaks
Attorneys representing New York City Mayor Eric Adams have intensified their efforts to have all charges against their client dismissed, filing a motion with a U.S. judge on Wednesday. The legal team is asserting prosecutorial misconduct and what they describe as an excessive number of leaks that would compromise Mayor Adams’ right to a fair trial.
This latest development follows closely on the heels of the Justice Department’s own motion to dismiss the corruption case against Mayor Adams. However, U.S. District Judge Dale Ho, presiding over the case, has opted not to immediately grant the Justice Department’s request. This has prompted Mayor Adams’ legal team to take further action.
In their new filing, Mayor Adams’ attorneys are urging Judge Ho to expedite the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the charges "with prejudice." Dismissal with prejudice would mean the charges cannot be brought again in the future. The legal team contends that the actions of the prosecutors have violated statutory and court rules, including long-established Justice Department policies designed to prevent prosecutorial misconduct.
The heart of the argument put forth by Mayor Adams’ legal team is the alleged "extraordinary" amount of leaked information attributed to prosecutors. The attorneys argue that these leaks have jeopardized Mayor Adams’ ability to have a fair trial.
They specifically highlighted a resignation letter dated February 12 from former acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon. Mayor Adams’ legal team argues that the contents of the letter would "destroy whatever presumption of innocence Mayor Adams had left."
The attorneys asserted that the government’s leaks not only violate Mayor Adams’ fundamental constitutional rights and his ability to receive a fair trial, but also violate numerous statutory and court rules. They emphasized the Justice Department’s own longstanding policies designed to curb prosecutorial misconduct.
As it stands, the charges against Mayor Adams remain in place until Judge Ho approves their dismissal.
Mayor Adams was indicted last fall on five federal corruption and bribery charges. These charges stem from allegations that he solicited illegal campaign contributions and received luxury travel perks on behalf of Turkish foreign nationals, according to Justice Department documents.
Mayor Adams has pleaded not guilty to all charges and has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
The Justice Department’s request to drop all corruption charges against Mayor Adams was made earlier this month by U.S. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove. This action is considered unusual and requires the formal approval of the presiding judge in the case.
In the motion to dismiss, Bove indicated that the legal proceedings against Mayor Adams were diverting resources from other Justice Department priorities, such as illegal immigration and violent crime.
However, Judge Ho has chosen to proceed cautiously, declining to immediately grant the motion to dismiss at a court hearing last week. He informed Bove and Mayor Adams’ legal team that he needed more time to carefully consider the facts.
Furthermore, Judge Ho has appointed former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement to argue against the motion to dismiss and to examine the Justice Department’s motives for dismissing the charges.
Judge Ho has instructed legal briefs to be filed by March 7, and if necessary, he has scheduled a hearing for March 14.
"This is a very complicated situation, at least from where I sit," Judge Ho said after the roughly 90-minute hearing last week. "I’m not going to shoot from the hip right here on the bench."
The decision to not immediately drop the charges against Mayor Adams is highly unusual. According to reports, no U.S. appellate court has ever sided with a federal judge who declined to grant an unopposed motion to dismiss.
The Justice Department has not yet responded to requests for comment on the new filing and whether it agrees that the case against Mayor Adams should be dismissed with prejudice.
This is an evolving situation, and the ultimate outcome will depend on Judge Ho’s decision after considering the arguments presented by both sides.
