Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley also weighed in:
Judge Emmet Sullivan's decision to allow third parties to submit amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs in former national security adviser Michael Flynn's case after the Justice Department moved to dismiss it has struck legal experts as "unusual," if not "outrageous," while Flynn's own counsel argues that it should not be allowed in the first place.
“This is an outrageous decision by a judge who’s now placed himself into that, you know, awful category of an activist who’s willing to set aside rules, set aside ethics, set aside precedent, and just go in a direction because he is politically motivated to do so," former Utah U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman told "Fox & Friends" Wednesday morning.
Unlike Tolman, who claimed that Sullivan was motivated by political activism, Moss suggested that in light of the controversy over the DOJ's decision to drop the case against a former Trump administration official, the judge wanted additional voices to weigh in on the matter "to reassure the public that there has been fair and impartial justice administered here."
Judge Sullivan himself acknowledged that the local criminal procedure rules do not provide for third parties to file amicus briefs in criminal matters, but he claimed that the local rules governing civil cases -- which do allow for amicus briefs -- "govern all proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia."
The Daily Wire also reported on the matter:
Interesting development just in the Flynn case. Judge Sullivan just issued an order saying "at the appropriate time, the Court will enter an Order governing the submission of any amicus curiae briefs." That certainly does not suggest quick order granting an unopposed motion...— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 12, 2020
As more and more evidence emerges of the misconduct engaged in by the government it could force Judge Sullivan to drop the case.
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s legal team called for an immediate end to the Department of Justice’s case against him after Judge Emmitt Sullivan ignored a DOJ request to dismiss the charges.
Sullivan tabled a motion by the DOJ to dismiss the case against Flynn filed after a review of case materials revealed evidence that the FBI set a perjury trap for Flynn. Instead, Sullivan invited interested parties on Tuesday to file friend-of-the-court briefs, called “amicus” briefs, to weigh in on the case.
“This travesty of justice has already consumed three or more years of an innocent man’s life — and that of his entire family. No further delay should be tolerated or any further expense caused to him and his defense,” Flynn attorney Sydney Powell wrote in a court filing criticizing Sullivan’s decision. “This Court should enter the order proposed by the government immediately.”
Powell noted that “this Court has consistently — on twenty-four (24) previous occasions — summarily refused to permit any third party to inject themselves or their views into this case.”