Adams Indictment: Federal Judge Might Not Dismiss

Feb 20

Mayor Adams Federal Indictment — Mayor Adams faces an indictment that Bondi wants dismissed. Will a Judge allow it?

The Indictment of Mayor Eric Adams

Chief among the numerous investigations into New York City Mayor Eric Adams is the ongoing federal prosecution overseen by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. In September 2024, Adams was indicted on multiple charges, including:

One count of conspiracy to defraud the United States
One count of wire fraud
Two counts of soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals
One count of soliciting and accepting a bribe

On October 8, 2024, former Adams' Chief Liaison to the Muslim Community, Mohamed Bahi, who had resigned a day earlier, was arrested and charged with witness tampering and destruction of evidence. His charges were directly related to the ongoing investigation into illegal campaign contributions made to Adams' mayoral campaign.

Law Enforcement Scrutiny on Adams' Administration

The indictment of Adams came after a series of high-profile resignations and investigations into his administration:

Buildings Commissioner Eric Ulrich was arrested in 2023 for an alleged bribery scheme and awaits trial in New York Supreme Court.
Police Commissioner Edward Caban resigned after IRS Criminal Investigation raids in 2024.
Schools Chancellor David C. Banks and Deputy Mayor Philip Banks III resigned after FBI warrant seizures of their phones.

The heightened law enforcement scrutiny led to speculation about the stability of Adams’ administration.

Political Fallout and Calls for Resignation

As the charges mounted, a growing number of New York elected officials called for Adams to resign. Under the New York City Charter, Governor Kathy Hochul has the power to suspend the mayor for 30 days and ultimately remove him from office. So far, she has declined to do so, instead stating:

"It's now up to Mayor Adams to show the City that he is able to lead while under indictment."

Additionally, New York City’s rarely-used Inability Committee could also remove the mayor. Comptroller Brad Landerissued a public letter on February 17, 2025, demanding Adams provide a contingency plan for city governance or face the possibility of the committee being convened.

Adams' Defense and Allegations of Retaliation

Adams has strongly denied the charges, calling them "entirely false and based on lies." He and his defenders maintain that the indictment is politically motivated, arguing it was retaliation for his opposition to the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of the migrant crisis.

DOJ Intervention and Prosecutor Resignations

On February 10, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) instructed federal prosecutors to drop charges against Adams.This decision led to a wave of resignations within the DOJ, including:

Interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Renee Sassoon
Kevin Driscoll, acting head of the DOJ’s Criminal Division
John Keller, acting head of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section
Hagan Scotten, the lead prosecutor in the Adams case

These resignations fueled speculation that the DOJ was politically intervening in the case for strategic reasons rather than legal merits.

The Trump Administration's Role in Dropping the Charges

On February 19, 2025, a federal judge held a hearing on the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the case. Deputy U.S. Attorney General Emil Bove argued that the dismissal was a "straightforward exercise in prosecutorial discretion," citing Trump’s executive order on weaponization of the justice system and Attorney General Pam Bondi’s memorandum outlining the same.

During the hearing, Judge Dale E. Ho expressed concerns about the circumstances surrounding the dismissal. When pressed on whether there was a "quid pro quo" agreement in which Adams would assist with immigration enforcement in exchange for the charges being dropped, Bove dismissed the idea, stating Adams had sworn under oath that no such deal existed.

However, the case took a dramatic turn when former interim U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon revealed that she had been ordered to dismiss the case despite prosecutors preparing to bring additional obstruction of justice charges against Adams. She called the move a "betrayal of justice" and submitted her resignation letter citing political interference.

The legal community reacted strongly to the controversy:

Seven former U.S. attorneys, including James Comey, Geoffrey Berman, and Mary Jo White, released a statement condemning the dismissal.
A former Watergate prosecutor urged the court to consider appointing a special counsel to independently investigate the case.
A motion was filed by three former U.S. attorneys asking the court to reject the DOJ’s request and consider appointing an independent special prosecutor.

Judge Ho has yet to rule on the dismissal but acknowledged that "it’s not in anyone’s interest here for this to drag on."

FBI Investigation into Adams' Foreign Travel and Campaign Fundraising

Scrutiny into Adams' foreign travel dates back to his tenure as Brooklyn Borough President. His frequent trips to Turkey and his close ties to Turkish officials raised red flags. In 2015, the Turkish consulate paid for Adams’ travel to Turkey. As mayor, Adams continued to emphasize his close relationship with the Turkish government, making more visits than any previous NYC mayor.

In 2021, a Brooklyn-based construction firm, KSK Construction, donated $14,000 to Adams’ mayoral campaign, which helped him qualify for public matching funds. KSK Construction is heavily financed by Turkey’s state-controlled VakıfBank. Federal investigators suspect that this may have been part of a straw donor scheme to funnel foreign money into Adams’ campaign, violating U.S. election laws.

Can a Federal Judge Dismiss an Indictment?

A federal judge’s power to dismiss an indictment at the request of a prosecutor is governed by Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states that “[t]he government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint.” This rule provides the executive branch, through the Department of Justice (DOJ), broad discretion in deciding whether to pursue or drop charges. However, the phrase “with leave of court” grants judges a limited but significant role in preventing prosecutorial abuse.

The Judge’s Role Under Rule 48(a): Prosecutorial Discretion vs. Judicial Oversight

The executive branch (through U.S. Attorneys and the DOJ) has the primary responsibility for prosecuting federal crimes. However, Rule 48(a) requires judicial approval to ensure dismissals are not:

1. Politically motivated or corruptly influenced (i.e., dismissing charges to protect political allies).

2. A form of harassment (i.e., repeatedly indicting and dismissing charges against the same defendant).

3. A means to manipulate the timing of a prosecution (e.g., dismissing a case to refile later under more favorable circumstances).

Despite this oversight, courts have historically granted wide latitude to prosecutors when they move to dismiss an indictment. The Supreme Court has indicated that courts should not second-guess prosecutorial decisions absent clear evidence of abuse of discretion.

Dismissal With Prejudice vs. Without Prejudice: Dismissal With Prejudice

A dismissal with prejudice means the charges cannot be refiled against the defendant for the same offense. This provides finality and prevents the government from prosecuting the defendant again on the same facts. Judges may grant dismissal with prejudice under the following circumstances:

1. Prosecutorial Misconduct – If the prosecution acted in bad faith, engaged in constitutional violations, or withheld exculpatory evidence (Brady violations), a judge may dismiss an indictment with prejudice.

2. Lack of Evidence – If it becomes clear that the government lacks sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and has already had a reasonable opportunity to gather evidence.

3. Severe Prejudice to the Defendant – If prolonged litigation has violated a defendant’s constitutional rights, such as through an unreasonable delay that infringes on the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, a judge may bar further prosecution.

Dismissal Without Prejudice

A dismissal without prejudice allows the government to refile charges later if new evidence emerges or circumstances change. This is the default approach unless there is evidence of abuse or misconduct by the prosecution. Common justifications for dismissal without prejudice include:

1. Evidentiary Issues – The prosecution may wish to drop the case temporarily while continuing an investigation.

2. Procedural Errors – If an indictment contains technical defects (such as an improper venue or incorrect legal theory), the government may seek dismissal and later refile a corrected indictment.

3. Strategic or Political Reasons – In rare cases, prosecutors may seek dismissal due to political considerations or policy changes, though judges may scrutinize such dismissals more carefully.

Judicial Scrutiny of Motions to Dismiss

While judges typically defer to the government’s request to dismiss an indictment, they can deny the motion if they find the dismissal request is being used:

• To shield a politically connected defendant from prosecution.

• To harass a defendant by repeatedly dismissing and refiling charges.

• As part of an illegitimate quid pro quo (e.g., dismissing charges in exchange for cooperation on unrelated matters).

A judge might also conditionally approve dismissal, requiring prosecutors to explain whether they intend to refile the case. However, courts rarely override a prosecutor’s decision unless there is clear evidence of abuse.

Case Law and Precedent

1. United States v. Cowan (1975) – The 5th Circuit held that courts should not interfere with prosecutorial discretion absent evidence of bad faith or manipulation of the justice system.

2. Rinaldi v. United States (1977) – The Supreme Court ruled that a court should grant a prosecutor’s dismissal request unless there is clear evidence of harassment or misconduct.

3. United States v. Fokker Services (2016) – The D.C. Circuit reinforced the principle that the executive branch has nearly absolute discretion over prosecutorial decisions, and courts should be reluctant to interfere.

Will Adam’s Indictment be Dismissed

In the case of Mayor Eric Adams, the Trump Administration’s request to dismiss the indictment raises serious legal and political questions. The controversy involves allegations that the dismissal was not based on legal merits but rather political convenience, possibly in exchange for Adams’ support on immigration enforcement.

• If Judge Dale Ho grants dismissal with prejudice, Adams would be permanently shielded from prosecution on these charges.

• If dismissal is granted without prejudice, charges could be reinstated after the 2025 election.

• If the judge denies dismissal entirely, the government would be forced to proceed with the case, which could expose whether the original indictment was politically motivated.

Given the high-profile resignations of DOJ prosecutors over the dismissal order, the judge may be more inclined to scrutinize the rationale behind the request, potentially delaying a ruling until further information is revealed.

A federal judge’s power to dismiss an indictment is limited but significant. While prosecutors control charging decisions, courts act as a safeguard against political interference and abuse of process. The distinction between dismissal with prejudice and without prejudice determines whether a defendant may face future prosecution.

In politically sensitive cases—such as Mayor Adams’ indictment—judicial scrutiny is heightened. If a judge believes that dismissal is being used to protect an ally or punish an opponent, they may deny the request or require additional justifications. The Adams case highlights the tension between prosecutorial discretion and judicial oversight, raising critical questions about the integrity of the justice system in politically charged prosecutions.

Now, Here’s the Best Part

If you found this analysis insightful, you need to read Fight the Feds: Unraveling Criminal Investigations—your essential guide to understanding how federal prosecutions work and how to defend against them.

Written by Ronald W. Chapman II, a former federal prosecutor turned defense attorney, this book breaks down how the government builds cases, the strategies they use to target individuals, and the legal defenses that can turn the tables in your favor.