Replies

Prosecutors and the defense submitted to Sullivan a proposed order limiting the use of any new evidence produced by the government. The evidence can be used by Flynn's defense "solely in connection with the defense of this case, and for no other purpose, and in connection with no other proceeding.” The proposed order, awaiting Sullivan's approval, also set out rules for handling "sensitive" materials.
That's where things stand now. The latest filings indicate both sides are taking Sullivan's order seriously, which is certainly a good idea, given Sullivan's history. But is there actually not-yet-produced evidence that might help Flynn? If so, would it have any effect on the case in which Flynn has already pleaded guilty?

Judge Sullivan would be insane to agree to Mueller’s proposed order (sealing all the evidence and preventing any of it from being used in any other proceeding). Hopefully he will deny the petition and tell Mueller to submit all data as ordered, when ordered, or be held in contempt of court. Mueller can petition to have all or part of it sealed after the Judge reviews it.

As a hypothetical example, what if the exculpatory evidence includes proof that McCabe falsified Strzok’s 302s from interviews with Flynn? If Sullivan agrees to the order, that evidence could not be used against McCabe. Nice try by the Swamp Lords.

That’s where I was headed. Judge Sullivan is not insane, but he is on a crusade against prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense. It started when he presided over the trial that convicted Senator Ted Stevens (R,AK) in 2008 - followed by the discovery that Stevens should not have been convicted because his defense was entitled to exculpatory evidence that the prosecution had and improperly withheld. Judge Sullivan was furious, and sicced a special counsel on the prosecution of the Stevens case. The upshot was that although the prosecution behaved improperly, the fact that Judge Sullivan had not issued a “Brady warning” from the bench precluded serious punishment of the miscreant prosecutors.
Since then Sullivan has written articles (at least one, published in The Wall Street Journal) advocating the issuance of a Brady warning by the judge in every criminal case. Since Judge Sullivan has every reason to suppose that the Flynn defense did not in fact know that FBI agents did not think that Flynn lied - and he is giving Mueller no slack to be “the decider” if exculpatory evidence in his possession is material, I suspect and hope that Judge Sullivan is suspicious of the whole Mueller enterprise. And might be spoiling for a chance to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate them.
The Flynn defense might not have any reason to hang tough on having the right to use its exculpatory evidence " in connection with the defense of this case, and for no other purpose, and in connection with no other proceeding.” But Judge Sullivan just might.
All that aside, it would seem to lie within the purview of the Attorney General to require conformance to a “Brady order” by any Mueller prosecution. I would hope that AG Sessions would get on the stick in that regard.
IANAL, but it would seem that since Brady is a SCOTUS finding which establishes the right of a defendant to know any exculpatory evidence the prosecution has, I don’t understand why any defense counsel would fail to ask the judge at the start of any trial to issue a Brady order. And, if the judge declines, why the defense would not register an exception. Refusal to issue a Brady order could be taken as an indication of lack of seriousness on the judge’s part in protecting the rights of the defendant.