Pages

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

New Pleadings Re Flynn's Effort To Withdraw His Guilty Plea

As promised by Sidney Powell, Michael Flynn's attorney, today we have additional pleadings to support Flynn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea:


and


I've only read the Declaration thus far. My impression is that the overwhelming emphasis is on the conflict of interest that Flynn's first attorneys--Covington, Burling--labored under. 

In What Are Flynn's Chances For Withdrawing His Guilty Plea? I offered my opinion that, while Flynn was fighting an uphill battle, he was not without hope of prevailing. I based that view on the argument that the standards for withdrawing a plea are necessarily tied to the specific facts of a given case. In my view, the facts in the Flynn case place Flynn in a far more favorable position than in a typical criminal case. The bottom line of Rule 11 is to come to a "fair and just" resolution. That gives Flynn, IMO, hope--because of the facts specific to his case. I concluded:

I've provided this lengthy set of facts because I think Powell can reasonably argue that the facts in Flynn's case are very different from the Cray facts. Specifically, Flynn will be relying on credible claims of a conflict on the part of Flynn's first lawyers as well as government misconduct and undue pressure brought against a vulnerable family member by prosecutors to coerce a guilty plea. Judge Sullivan will have to decide whether that constitutes "a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal". Cray will no doubt offer guidance, but the facts should provide Sullivan with the latitude to tailor a "fair and just" resolution.

I'll turn to the much longer supplemental motion and brief. Based on the declaration, IMO Powell makes a good case. Powell begins:


As will be seen below, and at any evidentiary hearing ordered by this Court, Mr. Flynn’s guilty  plea (and later failure to withdraw it) was the result of the ineffective assistance of counsel  provided by his former lawyers, who were in the grip of intractable conflicts of interest, and severely prejudiced him.

Now to see what's in the supplemental!

Here's how Powell begins her presentation of Covington's conflict and its detrimental effect on Flynn:

First, Mr. Flynn’s former counsel at Covington & Burling LLP (“Covington”) developed what is often referred to as an “underlying work” lawyer-to-client conflict of interest early in the representation. It arose from mistakes that the firm made in the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings it had made for Mr. Flynn and his company Flynn Intel Group (“FIG”). Rather than disclosing the errors—and insisting Mr. Flynn obtain new counsel to fix the problem, or allowing Covington to continue the representation (and the fix), knowing the truth—the lawyers said nothing to Mr. Flynn, charged him hundreds of thousands of dollars to re-do its own prior work, and still did not take the readily available steps of amending or supplementing the FARA forms.

OUCH! IOW, Covington failed to disclose its underlying FARA mistakes to Flynn, charging him hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix their own mistake, and then did a bad job of it:

At every turn, the lawyers’ interest was in obscuring their original errors, hiding the fact that they had never come clean with their client, and trying ever-harder to sweep their problems under the rug by arranging for and preserving a plea that Mr. Flynn wanted to withdraw.

And so, Powell finishes her opening statement with this one, two:

In this Circuit, a defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing must establish the “prejudice” element by showing “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Taylor, 139 F.3d at 929-30. In this case, the evidence will show that if Mr. Flynn had been given constitutionally adequate advice, he would not have pled guilty in 2017, and he would have withdrawn his plea in 2018. The taint of Covington’s constitutional violations permeates this case. 
In addition, there were defects in the Rule 11 plea colloquy. When this Court extended the colloquy in December 2018, among the questions this Court did not ask was if any additional  promises or threats were made to Mr. Flynn. The answer to that question is yes, there were. Moreover, this Court ended the sentencing hearing noting that it had “many, many, many more questions” about the factual basis for the plea. Hr’g Tr. Dec. 18, 2018 at 50:12-13. Accordingly, withdrawal of the plea should be allowed pursuant to Cray, 47 F.3d 1203.

25 comments:

  1. MW wrote:

    >>Perhaps Covington thought this case was "ordinary," and wasn't really all about "getting" a president, forcing President Trump to resign or be impeached?<<

    Hard to reconcile with Flynn's sworn statement that the very first thing his Covington & Burling attorneys asked him was "Do you have anything on Trump?"

    It seems like getting Trump was the very first thing on their minds, rather than defending their client.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EZ, give me a break. I'm trying to read and manage comments while also coming up with a new post.

      Delete
    2. No intent of giving you a hard time.

      Just offering an observation on how much it seems like Flynn's lawyers were working for prosecutors instead of Flynn. Sorry if it came off as criticism; it wasn't meant to be.

      Delete
    3. I wasn't objecting to criticism. You don't seem to understand that I'm trying to read and digest a 55 page doc while also mentally composing an analysis of what I'm reading.

      Delete
    4. I shouldn't have tried to do both at the same time.

      Delete
    5. Having watched pretty much everyone in D.C. selling their integrity to get Trump has convinced me that Flynn's original lawyers intentionally buried him with "mistakes". I have no reason to believe his lawyers have any more integrity than an MSNBC talking head.

      Delete
    6. I'm on p. 32/55. It's rather hair raising. No, no more integrity than an MSNBC talking head. Flynn was a lamb led to the slaughter.

      Delete
    7. You do yeoman like work keeping up with all this and we Boomer Rubes appreciate it.

      Can't decide which I prefer. Deplorable has a certain air of plebian camaraderie about it; but, Boomer Rube rings out like 'Hail fellow, well met' with an underlying echo of 'Don't make me reach back there'.
      Tom S.

      Delete
    8. How about Deplorable Boomer Rube.


      Rob S

      Delete
  2. I think it clear the plea should be thrown out, but I don't trust Sullivan any longer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So far it seems a pretty compelling case to allow him to withdraw his plea. Key, I think, is that Powell has found more recent and more favorable controlling case law on the issue, and has also pointed out deficiencies in Sullivan's handling of Rule 11. Should be interesting.

      Delete
  3. I'm halfway through Flynn's declaration. So he paid $3,000,000 to lawyers who screwed him. It makes my blood boil.

    I've said it before, we need to have serious criminal justice reform. We're supposed to be the masters and the government is our servant. It's the exact opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  4. After Donald is reelected, if the Flynn case is still dragging on, he should order the case withdrawn. If I understand it, as the unitary executive, he should have that right.

    He should then fire Wray, Van Grack, Liu and the other snake pit denizens.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I found interesting that the prosecutors are now recommending probation only- it makes it easier for Sullivan to deny the withdrawl since Flynn wouldn't be facing jail time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not really, because Powell is challenging Sullivan's handling of the Rule 11 colloquy. I doubt he'll want to be reversed on appeal, and saying, hey, it was only probation won't wash. It would still be a felony conviction.

      Delete
  6. sundance has a post on this, adding
    "Hours later the DOJ revised their sentencing memo, dropped their request for jail time and offered probation."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. But as I said to Yancey, I doubt that will satisfy Powell. She's a warrior.

      Delete
  7. My 2 cents. A conviction is still a conviction, as Mark says. Even a pardon doesn't entirely erase the stigma (esp if the pardon comes from the Stable Genius). I'll bet that Powell (and Flynn) won't give up until charges are dismissed or Flynn is acquitted.

    When you stop to think, Flynn was just an innocent victim who the prosecutors thought they could turn to somehow implicate Trump in some kind of (any kind of) crime. The stuff they threatened him with (FARA, Logan Act, emoluments, etc.) was SOP in the Swamp and they threatened to ruin him with this stuff. His own lawyers told him he would likely get 15 years hard time if he didn't plead...and co-operate. I.e. incriminate Trump.

    I would love to see the likes of lawyers Mueller, Van Grack, Weissmann, Klinesmith, Lisa Page, Liu, Yates, Ohr and friends enjoy the same treatment they doled out one day...soon...

    And it sounds like Flynn has a great case against Covington & Burling who...dollars to donuts...were on the prosecution's team. Its not just Holder and Chertoff. The place is riddled with swamp rats and has longstanding ties to the Democrat party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does make you wonder--was there no one who give him some good advice over all that time he was with Covington? Like: find another lawyer?

      Delete
    2. When you read Flynn's 'Declaration' it does have a deer in the headlights quality to it which is a bit hard to reconcile with the image of a hard-charging national security advisor ready to take on all of America's global adversaries under a highly unorthodox president...

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I noticed that, too. But when you have the full weight of the federal government coming at you like a locomotive in a tunnel, all of a sudden you're just an ordinary toad beneath the harrow. All those badges and medals don't mean a thing. That's why, like you, I very much want to see a serious role reversal here. And with Pientka cooperating, as seems pretty certain, and Horowitz talking about investigations that aren't public, that time may yet be coming.

      Delete
  8. "Horowitz talking about investigations that aren't public".
    Mark, can you steer us to a page or two, which do most justice to what the IG said about this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It dates back to September:

      https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1174341921839427588.html

      The point is that there's still stuff going on that we don't know about.

      Delete
    2. Thx for the tip.
      If you're referring to the part about how he'll "stick to what's public", yeah, that's cagey.

      Delete