Adani case: US DoJ says courts can’t second-guess prosecutors

Washington, July 4 (IANS) The US Department of Justice (DoJ) on Saturday argued that federal courts cannot second-guess prosecutors’ decisions to abandon criminal cases, telling a judge that requiring detailed explanations for dismissing charges against billionaire industrialist Gautam Adani risks violating the US Constitution’s separation of powers.

The argument came in a 10-page submission filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York after the court directed the department to explain why it was seeking dismissal with prejudice of all charges against Adani and seven co-defendants.

The department said courts have traditionally accepted brief motions seeking dismissal of criminal cases because demanding more detailed explanations could expose privileged internal deliberations, discourage prosecutors from dropping weak cases and delay justice for defendants.

It argued that forcing prosecutors to publicly justify their decisions would intrude into powers assigned exclusively to the Executive Branch under the U.S. Constitution.

“The Constitution vests the prosecutorial power in the Executive, not the Judiciary,” the filing states.

According to the Justice Department, “Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure” gives courts only a limited role when prosecutors seek to dismiss charges.

The filing says that role is primarily to protect defendants from prosecutorial harassment rather than to evaluate whether prosecutors have made the correct charging decision or exercised their discretion wisely.

The department maintained that courts are not authorised to decide whether the government’s reasons for dismissing a case are “good enough.”

“The Court cannot inquire into whether the basis for dismissal was ‘good enough.’ That is a determination entrusted exclusively to the Article II Executive,” the filing says.

It further argued that compelling prosecutors to disclose their internal reasoning would undermine executive privilege by exposing confidential discussions, legal analysis and prosecutorial strategy.

The filing cited several U.S. Supreme Court decisions recognising that prosecutorial discretion is an executive function protected by the constitutional separation of powers. It argued that internal debates over whether to pursue or abandon criminal charges are part of the Executive Branch’s deliberative process and should remain confidential except in extraordinary circumstances.

The Justice Department also warned that requiring detailed explanations whenever charges are dropped could have unintended consequences.

According to the filing, prosecutors may become less willing to dismiss weak cases if doing so requires revealing sensitive evidence, exposing internal disagreements or disclosing information relating to ongoing investigations.

“Requiring the Department to explain to the Court why a case is not worthy of further resources thus almost certainly makes it less likely the Department seeks dismissal in future cases,” the filing states, arguing that such an outcome would ultimately harm criminal defendants by keeping weak prosecutions alive longer than necessary.

The department also contended that judicial scrutiny of dismissal decisions could prolong criminal cases even when prosecutors and defendants agree the charges should be dropped, leaving defendants under unnecessary legal and personal burdens.

Although the filing largely focused on constitutional principles, the department said it agreed to provide a limited explanation for dismissing the Adani prosecution because the court had specifically requested one and because the dismissal motion had already been pending for several weeks.

The Justice Department moved earlier this year to dismiss with prejudice all criminal charges against Adani and seven co-defendants. In Saturday’s submission, it argued that the prosecution suffered from multiple legal, jurisdictional and evidentiary flaws but maintained that, as a constitutional matter, the Executive Branch alone has the authority to determine when a criminal case should be brought—or brought to an end.

—IANS

lkj/na