Last Monday, the number two official of the Department of Justice, Emil Bove, a former criminal defense attorney for Donald Trump, directed that the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York dismiss the indictment against the Mayor of New York “as soon as practicable.” In the letter, which was made public, Mr. Bove asserted that the Department’s decision to dismiss was not made on an assessment of the legal theory of prosecution or the strength of the evidence against Mayor Adams. Rather, it was made on the assessment that the pending corruption indictment interfered with Mayor Adams’ ability to cooperate in President Trump’s immigration crackdown, as well as the fact that this indictment returned in September of 2024 threatened to interfere with Mayor Adams’ reelection campaign for the Democratic primary in New York in June of 2025 – nine months later.
I have been a criminal defense attorney for over 50 years and I passionately believe in the presumption of innocence. I have also seen ill-advised indictments having no basis in law or fact, and I frequently see indictments that grossly overcharge a defendant in hopes of eventually extracting a plea bargain to lesser charges. As to the Adams’ indictment itself, I had some difficulty with the theory of prosecution where the illegal benefit was merely an upgrade in airline tickets to first class status.
That having been said, I have never seen or heard of the dismissal of a major corruption indictment not based on a re-evaluation of the legal theory of the prosecution or the quality of the evidence to prove the charges (for example, missing or compromised witnesses). But the rationale advanced by the Department of Justice that they want the Mayor available to cooperate with President Trump’s immigration crackdown or because the indictment was returned too close to the primary election for Mayor has no precedent in any case that I am aware of.
If the rule of law is to prevail, indictments can always be reassessed, but any decision to dismiss should be based on the strength of the evidence or the quality of the legal theory which is the lynchpin of the indictment. Otherwise, what’s happening looks like a political chess match and not a search for truth.
The decision by the Department of Justice looks even more political because they directed that the indictment be dismissed “without prejudice,” which means that at a later date the Department could decide to reindict Mayor Adams. To be blunt, this gives the Administration a political blackjack over the Mayor with respect to immigration issues, funding issues, or anything else. To further complicate the political optics, newspaper reports today indicate that Mayor Adams is exploring leaving the Democratic Party and running for reelection as a Republican, but it is unclear whether this is just a political rumor.
In short, there is nothing wrong with analyzing and reconsidering an indictment, but indictments should not be dismissed like this. Ultimately, for the Department of Justice to be successful in this proposed dismissal, it will have to be approved by the United States District Court Judge, who will have the last word.
In a surprise development it was just reported that the Acting US Attorney for the Southern District of New York , Danielle Sassoon , has resigned. She was the one who received the direction from the DOJ to dismiss the Adams indictment, although it has been reported that she believed in the case. She made no statement as to her reasons for the abrupt resignation, but there is sure to be speculation.
(Visited 130 times, 130 visits today)
In a shocking turn of events, the Department of Justice has directed the dismissal of corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams. This unprecedented decision has sent shockwaves through the political world and has left many wondering what led to this sudden change in course.
Mayor Eric Adams, a prominent figure in New Jersey politics, was facing multiple corruption charges related to his time in office. The charges ranged from bribery to embezzlement, and it seemed like his political career was on the brink of collapse. However, the Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss these charges has left many scratching their heads.
According to sources within the Department of Justice, the decision to dismiss the charges against Mayor Adams was based on new evidence that came to light during the course of the investigation. This evidence reportedly cast doubt on the validity of the charges and raised questions about the integrity of the investigation itself.
While the specifics of this new evidence have not been made public, it is clear that it was significant enough to warrant the dismissal of the charges against Mayor Adams. This decision has sparked a fierce debate among legal experts and political analysts, with some praising the Department of Justice for its commitment to justice and others questioning the motives behind the dismissal.
Mayor Adams, for his part, has maintained his innocence throughout the investigation and has expressed relief at the dismissal of the charges. In a statement released following the announcement, he thanked his supporters for standing by him during this difficult time and vowed to continue serving the people of New Jersey with honesty and integrity.
The fallout from this unprecedented decision is likely to be felt for years to come. The Department of Justice’s handling of this case has raised serious questions about the fairness and impartiality of our justice system, and many are calling for a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the charges against Mayor Adams.
As more details emerge, it is clear that this is a story that is far from over. The implications of this decision will reverberate throughout the political landscape of New Jersey and beyond, and only time will tell what the ultimate impact will be.
