Judge calls on independent atty to argue against dropping Adams’ case
/
The judge in Mayor Eric Adams’ federal bribery and corruption case appointed an independent attorney to argue against the dismissal of the case. AP file photo by Julia Demaree Nikhinson
By Ryan Schwach
President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice and Mayor Eric Adams agree – the federal bribery and corruption charges brought against the mayor last year should be dismissed. But despite their consensus, the judge overseeing the case is not so convinced.
On Friday, Judge Dale E. Ho appointed an amicus curiae – an independent lawyer – to argue against the dismissal of Adams’ case, making it so no final ruling on Adams’ legal future will be made until at least early March.
The ruling comes a day after Governor Kathy Hochul announced her plan to issue a set of “political sanctions” on Adams as a result of the DOJ’s attempt to dismiss the case, which led to the resignation of half a dozen federal prosecutors and four of Adams’ top deputies.
In a decision issued Friday afternoon, Ho said he does not believe that the argument against the dismissal of the mayor’s case was addressed during a hearing last week, which saw both Adams’ lawyer and the government argue for the charges to be dropped.
Paul D. Clement, a high-profile lawyer and former solicitor general, will be tasked with making the case for keeping Adams’ case alive in the courthouse on Centre Street.
Adams has been accused in recent weeks of striking a secret deal with the Trump administration for help with the criminal case. Though Ho made no mention of the accusations in his ruling, both acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove and Adams’ attorney, Alex Spiro, have said the dismissal is not related to the merits of the case, but the political fallout that has affected Adams’ ability to do his job as mayor.
“An appointment is appropriate here to assist the court’s decisionmaking,” Ho wrote in his decision. “That is particularly so in light of the public importance of this case, which calls for careful deliberation.”
Ho said that under usual circumstances, the decision making process is served through the adversarial relationship between the prosecutors and the defendant. But that hasn’t been the case between Trump’s prosecutors and Adams.
“Normally, courts are aided in their decision-making through our system of adversarial testing, which can be particularly helpful in cases presenting unusual fact patterns or in cases of great public importance,” Ho wrote.
He added that the Supreme Court often appoints an independent lawyer in similar situations “where the government does not oppose the position advanced by its adversary.”
In arguing the case against dismissal, Clement will have to address the legal standards for dropping the charges, the court’s role in the decision and the procedure for such an action.
Clement is currently a partner at Clement & Murphy PLCC, a firm he founded, and has argued more than 100 cases before the United States Supreme Court both for and against the government.
The attorney has argued in support of a slew of Republican causes, including gun owner rights and the ban on same-sex marriage.
As solicitor general under the second Bush Administration, he defended the government’s actions during the War on Terrorism and its treatment of prisoners of war.
He has also long been considered a potential pick for Supreme Court justice by a Republican president. In a 2012 Reuters article, Clement was described as "at the top of any short list” for the Supreme Court had Mitt Romney been elected president.
Adams’ attorneys and the DOJ will have to address the questions Ho laid out as well, and their responses are due on March 7. Ho also scheduled a March 14 hearing should there be need for discussion on the briefs due the week prior.
In a response to the move, Spiro, Adams’ attorney, sent a letter to Ho that did not explicitly mention the appointment of Clement, but argued that prosecutors routinely make decisions about whether they want to prosecute the case.
“Every day prosecutors exercise their judgment when determining what cases to bring,” Spiro wrote. “In this case, there was a lapse in that judgment. Prosecutors failed to make the correct…determination that the charged crimes are unsupported by evidence, and they went ahead and indicted Mayor Adams despite the weakness of their claims.”
“The Department of Justice has realized its error and now seeks to correct the prior administration’s mistake,” he added. “There is nothing unusual or suspect about setting right what was wrong. That is what justice does.”
Former Solicitor General Paul Clement has been appointed as an independent attorney to argue the case against the dismissal of Mayor Eric Adams’ federal indictment. Photo via Clement & Murphy PLLC
On Wednesday, Adams, Spiro and Bove appeared before Ho in Manhattan to clarify the judge’s questions about Bove’s February order to dismiss Adams’ case “without prejudice.”
At that 90-minute hearing, both parties argued that the case should be dismissed because the original prosecutors under Southern District Attorney Damian Williams acted with "impropriety,” and that the case interfered with Adams’ duties as mayor and as mayoral candidate.
“[The case] impede[s] his ability to communicate with federal authorities in a clear and complete way,” Bove said.
Ho said that he didn’t want the case to “drag on,” but clearly saw the need for more deliberation following the hearing.
In order to at least address the concerns that the case would get in the way of Adams’ mayoral duties, Ho said the mayor does not need to appear at the hearings regarding dismissal.
“In light of the concerns raised by the parties regarding the mayor's responsibilities and the burden of continued court appearances, the court notes that while Mayor Adams has a right to appear at any future proceedings, he need not do so given the current procedural posture,” he said.
Prior to the hearing, outside organizations and attorneys filed letters with Ho arguing for a special counsel to be appointed for the case.
Those same groups applauded Ho’s decision to appoint an independent attorney on Friday.
"Common Cause/NY is thrilled that the court has taken our suggestion to appoint an independent counsel to present adversarial arguments against the Department of Justice's motion to drop the public corruption case against Eric Adams,” said the Executive Director of good-government group Common Cause/NY Susan Lerner and Board Member Nick Akerman, a former prosecutor.
“Judge Ho's decision to put the public first when the Department of Justice and the mayor have failed to do so, is why an independent judiciary is essential for a healthy democracy,” Akerman added. “This is the very meaning of the rule of law."
