The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Eric Rasmusen Archive
General Flynn Versus Judge Sullivan
What Do You Do with Rogue Judges?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In 2017 President Trump’s National Security Advisor, former general Michael Flynn, pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents who chatted with him in his office. His Covington and Burling lawyers failed, from incompetence or double-dealing, to ask to see what evidence the FBI had, so he fired them and hired Sidney Powell. Less ladylike, she pressed the Justice Department to cough up the evidence. In January 2020, Flynn asked to withdraw his guilty plea, and in May the Justice Department itself admitted that the prosecution was improper and submitted a motion to Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case (see The Federalist, May 19 and June 2 and June 11).

Four days later, The Washington Post published an article by retired judge John Gleeson calling for Judge Sullivan to appoint an amicus (a “friend of the court”) to oppose dismissal. The next day, Judge Sullivan issued an invitation for amici and the day after that he appointed Gleeson himself as amicus to oppose the motion to dismiss. Flynn responded with a mandamus petition to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals asking that it order Sullivan to stop delaying and grant the motion to dismiss. And on June 24, the Court did just that 2 to 1, in a stinging opinion not complementary to Judge Sullivan.

Mandamus is an unusual sort of appeal that asks the appeals court to interrupt a case to stop a judge who’s gone off the rails. I’m a professor at a business school, so questions of legal organization interest me. How do we set up a system to efficiently make a rogue judge behave? I submitted an amicus brief myself.

Mandamus is rarely appropriate, even if the judge has made a mistake. We want most cases handled by just one court, with one judge. That one judge will almost always get things right. Most cases are not hard, and the trial court has a good shot at being right even in hard cases. Individuals do make mistakes, however, even if they are judges, and so we have appeals courts. The usual appeal is to a three-judge panel, to avoid individual lapses. To run efficiently, we don’t want the appeals court to repeat everything the trial court did. We strictly limit things, usually to 75 pages of writing and 30 minutes of talk. We also limit when the court will start listening. Most petitions for mandamus are rejected not because the lower-court judge is right but because it’s more efficient to wait till the trial is done and then let the loser submit all his grievances at once, not piecemeal. We want justice, but with the least cost in time and energy.

Mandamus, therefore, is not about trial judges making wrong decisions but the wrong kind of decisions. If it’s just a wrong decision, wait till the end and appeal. But Judge Sullivan is making the wrong kind of decision. He is supposed to be carrying out a duty— approving or denying dismissal of charges. Instead, he is delaying his decision and starting an investigation. If he has good reasons to deny dismissal, he should deny, and state his reasons so later the appeals court can review them. If he just suspects there are reasons, he should swallow his doubts and dismiss. What he shouldn’t do is say he suspects the Justice Department is corrupt so he needs to invent a new kind of investigation with no established procedures and no fixed length, asking everybody in Washington, D. C., for ideas and information. He shouldn’t start a fishing expedition, especially given that he won’t even say what he thinks a fish looks like. It isn’t the job of judges to investigate corruption in high places. That’s what grand juries do. Or the FBI. Or reporters. But not judges.

The purpose of mandamus is to make judges do what judges are supposed to do, not to make them do it right. As Judge Posner said, “The historic and still the central function of mandamus is to confine officials within the boundaries of their authorized powers.”(In re United States, 345 F.3d 450 (2003) If they do their job and make a mistake, the appeals court can fix it later. If they don’t do their job at all, or try to do someone else’s job, the appeals court has to intervene immediately.

So mandamus is an application of the maxim, “Where there’s a right, there’s a remedy” (“Ubi jus ibi remedium”). But does Flynn have any right to be remedied? If his claims are correct, then eventually whatever Judge Sullivan does, Flynn can appeal and win. So what’s the harm from waiting?

Let’s use a hypothetical. Suppose the prosecutor moves to dismiss charges in a case and the judge says he needs to postpone saying yes or no for two years until Mars and Venus have aligned in such a way that more can be known. He appoints his trusty astrologer friend as amicus curiae with a directive to report back in two years.

What can the prosecutor and defendant do? Clearly the judge has gone off the rails. But he hasn’t denied the motion to dismiss. Nor has he said he will base his decision on astrology— just that he will accept amicus briefs. The astrologer isn’t an attorney, but that’s no bar to being an amicus. I’m not one myself, and they took mine. So what’s the harm?

The harm is in the process. A legal system can’t avoid having judges make mistakes that lengthen proceedings unless we appoint angels as judges. So we let the mistakes accumulate and we let losers appeal. But it’s simpler to see when a judge simply isn’t doing his job or is doing somebody else’s job. Judge Posner said in the 2003 case, “The judge thus is playing U.S. Attorney. It is no doubt a position that he could fill with distinction, but it is occupied by another person.” As Flynn’s lawyer said in asking the appeals court to rebuke Judge Sullivan, “The game is over and this Court should order the umpire to leave the field.” Sullivan’s problem is that he wants to be both judge and prosecutor. He wants it so badly that now he’s defendant too.

We could go ahead and let our hypothetical astrologizing judge be the corpse at every funeral and the bride at every wedding, if that makes him happy. But it does cause harm. Most obviously, the defendant is in limbo two more years. Justice delayed is justice denied. Vindication matters, and the sooner the better. Indeed, we could imagine a different situation where the prosecution moved to dismiss but the defendant objected and asked the judge to deny so as to force the prosecution to publicly admit the charges were false. An important function of courts is to provide public certification of who has done wrong and who has not. That’s one reason why police brutality should sometimes be prosecuted even if the policeman is innocent and the prosecutor does not think he can win: trials often show, dramatically, that the policeman did not deserve the abuse he’s received in the fake news media and help him get a little of his reputation back. But here, in the Flynn case, the Justice Department admitted its mistake, humbly, in 20 pages of detail. Delay is also harmful to the prosecutor. Prosecutors don’t want to put sticky notes in their calendars reminding them to come back in two years. And if the prosecutor finds he has made a mistake in bringing charges and does the right thing and confesses this in court, it’s ignoble to repay him by shining a public spotlight on his mistakes longer than necessary.

But the main harm from a judge taking a two-year astrology break is not to the prosecutor or the defendant, but to the court. People start snickering about looking to Venus and Mars for guidance. The trial judge in our hypothetical, of course, is willing to accept this burden. He thinks justice demands he wait for the planets to align properly, and he wants justice. He is willing to accept public ridicule; it is the cost of doing good. Fiat justitia ruat caelum. But it is not just the judge that bears the cost, but his court, his colleagues on the bench in that courthouse. They lose credibility when he does. They lose even more credibility if they were told about his astrological antics, were asked to intervene, and they said it wasn’t important enough to bother with. The public soon forgets which particular judge is a Mars fan, but they remember someone got away with being a Mars fan in that court.

My scholarly research is on Japanese judges. Different countries keep judges nonpolitical and legitimate in different ways. In Japan, young judges join the bench after passing an examination and then rise through the ranks, as in the U. S. Foreign Service. If you are promising, you start in Tokyo District Court. If you are lazy or become an activist, you end up doing divorces in Okinawa. The Secretariat which controls judicial assignments to cities and courts is perhaps too powerful, but on the plus side the result is that hard-working, responsible, and talented judges are rewarded and irresponsible judges are quarantined.

In America, on the other hand, federal judges are neither promoted nor demoted. Appointment to the Supreme Court and impeachment are too rare to be carrots and sticks. Judges stay in the same job and the same city, as a general rule. Most district court judges do not want to be appeals court judges, and most appeals court judges do not want to be district court judges. Both are enjoyable and prestigious jobs; it’s just that being a district court judge, master of his courtroom, appeals to the somatotonic action type and being an appeals court judge, discussing legal fine points with a team of other judges, appeals to the cerebretonic scholarly type.

Since we don’t have promotion and demotion, we need mandamus. Mandamus is important to right particular wrongs, but also to deter judges who overstep their authority. The longer a judge continues with frivolous proceedings, the greater the public amusement and, if it’s a political case like Flynn’s, the greater the partisan divide. It lends credence to the claims made in different ways by Trumpers and Buckleyites that in America justice is “the will of the stronger,” rather than “doing what is right, whether that hurts friend or foe.” (Plato, The Republic, Book I). Judge Sullivan’s brief says:

“Mr. Flynn likewise errs in seeking mandamus on the basis that further proceedings in the district court will subject [DOJ] to sustained assaults on its integrity.’ Judge Sullivan has not disparaged DOJ’s integrity in any way.”

Sullivan doesn’t get it. It’s not that “further proceedings in the district court will subject the Department of Justice to sustained assaults on its integrity”. After all, DOJ has come clean and acknowledged it shouldn’t have charged Flynn. No, the problem is that “further proceedings in the district court” will subject the D.C. Circuit “to sustained assaults on its integrity.” The longer the circus goes on, the longer the court looks bad. For the public to lose faith in courts is fatal to the rule of law. Final judgments will no longer be final. “The Court has ruled against you” will become “Judge Sullivan doesn’t like you.” And that’s no more dispositive than “President Trump says you’re stupid.”

Eric Rasmusen is Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business. He has also held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard and Yale Law Schools, UCLA, Oxford, and the University of Tokyo. The views expressed here are in his private capacity.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Judicial System, Michael Flynn 
Hide 13 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Isn’t this the Professor who shared on Twitter a article and got (almost?) ‘cancelled’ as a result?

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  2. My scholarly research is on Japanese judges. Different countries keep judges nonpolitical and legitimate in different ways.

    The problem in Japan is the Prosecutors. They have weapons at their disposal American prosecutors can only dream of – like questioning you for weeks on end without your lawyer being present, or ensuring that you have an unheated cell. Little wonder that the vast majority plead guilty to lesser charges, even when innocent. Actual trials are even rarer than in America.

    • Replies: @godfree roberts
    , @anon
  3. @Verymuchalive

    How many of our 2,000,000 prisoners plead guilty to lesser charges for the same reason? 99%?

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  4. It is ironic that it was Judge Sullivan who told Flynn to rethink his guilty plea. It would seem he wants to investigate because he does not trust the people that would be charged with investigating.

  5. Yes indeed. The public (a great many of us. I would bet most. I wold bet a lot more than most) has lost all faith in a fair and impartial court. From the local circuit court that believes every lying cop to SCOTUS that conjures holy writ out of thin air, we are done. If this condition is not fatal to to the rule of law, it will be present at the wake. And that should be sometime this fall. All you amicis get ready….

  6. @godfree roberts

    Please provide the evidence. For a ” Developed Country “, the US has a very high murder and felony rate.
    Japan has a homogeneous population and just about the lowest crime rate for a “Developed Country”.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  7. Evidence for what?

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  8. @godfree roberts

    How many of our 2,000,000 prisoners plead guilty to lesser charges for the same reason? 99%?

    It is generally accepted that very many prisoners in America plead guilty to lesser charges rather than stand trial. If 99% is a rhetorical question, I say provide the evidence. There must be ( or maybe not ) academic studies on this matter.
    If other commenters can provide answers, please do.
    As someone knowledgeable about law, maybe Professor Rasmusen himself might know. But after the brouhaha about Vdare, replying to an UR commenter may not be a good idea for his academic career.

    • Replies: @godfree roberts
  9. @Vergissmeinnicht

    I certainly believe so.
    If he has trouble for appearing in UR, he will doubtless claim that the agency or syndicate sold it on and he has no control over whom they sell it to.
    To preserve plausible deniability, I expect he will never reply to any commenters or to the website. He is not the only UR writer to do so, and for the same reason.

  10. @Verymuchalive

    New York Times:

    Mar 23, 2012 -For years, the nation’s highest court has devoted the majority of its criminal justice efforts to ensuring that defendants get a fair day in court and a fair sentence once a trial is concluded. But in two decisions on Wednesday, the Supreme Court tacitly acknowledged that it has been enforcing an image of the system that is very different from the real, workaday world inhabited by prosecutors and defense lawyers across the country.

    In that world, 97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence. Courtroom trials, the stuff of television dramas, almost never take place.

    Ronald F. Wright, a professor of law at Wake Forest University, said that for generations plea bargains have been the rule rather than the exception, “and the Supreme Court has, until the last two or three years, found a way to ignore that.”

    Professor Wright likened the court’s decisions on Wednesday to “Rip Van Winkle waking up. He looks around and says, ‘Wow, when I went to sleep the world was full of trials.’ ”

    The decisions, endorsed by a 5-to-4 majority and written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, affirm a defendant’s right under the Sixth Amendment to have the assistance of an effective lawyer during pretrial negotiations. Both of the cases before the court involved defendants who failed to take plea bargains after receiving bad legal advice.

    Taken together, the rulings greatly expand the supervisory reach of judges to include plea bargaining, a process that has traditionally been conducted informally and with so little oversight that one law professor, Stephanos Bibas of the University of Pennsylvania, has compared it to a Turkish bazaar.

    Reacting to the decisions, legal scholars on Thursday used words like “huge” and “bold” to describe them. “I can’t think of another decision that’s had any bigger impact than these two are going to have over the next few years,” Professor Wright said. Perhaps how bold was reflected in the intensity of Justice Antonin Scalia’s scathing dissent, which excoriated the court for elevating the “necessary evil” of plea bargains into “a constitutional entitlement.”

  11. Yes indeed. The public (a great many of us. Perhaps a lot more than most) has lost all faith in a fair and impartial court. From the local circuit court that believes every lying cop to SCOTUS that conjures holy writ out of thin air, we are done. If this condition is not fatal to to the rule of law, it will be present at the wake. And that should be sometime this fall. All you amicis get ready….

  12. anon[935] • Disclaimer says:

    Author here. But the prosecutors in Japan are overworked. THey ahve fewer proseuctors per crime than in the US, despite the vastly lower crime rate. See:

    “Why Is the Japanese Conviction Rate So High?” ( J. Mark Ramseyer and Eric Rasmusen ), Journal of Legal Studies , January 2001) 30(1): 53-88. Conviction rates are high in Japan. Why? We suggest it is because Japanese prosecutors are understaffed. If they can afford to bring only their strongest cases, judges see only the most obviously guilty defendants, and high conviction rates would then follow. Crucially, however, Japanese judges face biased incentives. A judge who acquits a defendant runs significant risks of hurting his career and earns scant hope of positive payoffs. Using data on the careers and published opinions of 321 Japanese judges (all judges who published an opinion on a criminal case in 1976 or 1979), we find skewed incentives to convict. First, a judge who— trying a defendant alone– acquits the defendant will spend during the next decade an extra year and a half in branch office assignments. Second, a judge who acquits a defendant but finds the acquittal reversed on appeal will spend an extra two years in branch offices. Conversely, a judge who finds a conviction reversed incurs no substantial penalty. Unfortunately for innocent suspects, the absence of an unbiased judiciary also reduces the incentives Japanese prosecutors have to prosecute only the most obviously guilty defendants. Data is here.

  13. @Verymuchalive

    Evidence of what? That prosecutors almost always over charge in order to get a plea bargain? Just look at the evidence that 96% of criminal cases do not go to trial. That the US is a more violent country than Japan means nothing. No one is saying that violent crimes should not be prosecuted. But there is an over incarceration problem in America (the evidence is looking at the rate per 100,000 and comparing it to all other countries on Earth, including the most dictatorial and draconian).

    And that is due to over charging coupled with ludicrous, cruel and unusual sentencing lengths handed down by many insane “judges” all over the US. Want evidence of that? Try Googling a bit. You’ll find it.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Rasmusen Comments via RSS