Prosecutor Resignations Regarding Case of Mayor Eric Adams

by John Bandler

This got long, here's an outline, skip to #3 for the linked documents:

Introduction and summary
Note about opposing views
Timeline with important letters and court documents linked
"Good" prosecutors and ethics in government
More commentary
Another disclaimer
Conclusion
Additional reading on my site

1. Introduction and summary

In February 2025, top federal prosecutors in at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington D.C. ordered top federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to drop the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams. SDNY handles Manhattan and several other counties and is one of the biggest and most prestigious federal districts.

Danielle Sassoon, the top SDNY prosecutor (Acting U.S. Attorney for SDNY), declined to follow that order, asserted the order was improper, and essentially resigned in protest. Other prosecutors resigned rather than carry out what they believed were improper, unethical orders.

I built this page to host the important documents, build out some thoughts, and use as a teaching and learning resource someday.

This page can be helpful for my teaching on criminal justice, law, and ethics. Maybe it will be helpful for you too.

If this were TV, I would turn it off in disgust at the writers for trying to unfairly discredit the justice system with their viewers by being unrealistic and outrageous. But this is really happening and I cannot turn it off.

2. Opposing views

In the Eric Adams case, we have two completely opposite views from different prosecutors in the same U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

One "side" essentially says this is a proper criminal prosecution of Eric Adams, properly grounded in facts and law, properly motivated, fully supported by successive U.S. Attorneys and team, and dismissal would be unethical and unjust.
- This "side" includes the fomer DOJ and Danielle Sassoon, Hagan Scotten, others who resigned, and others who support their position.
Another "side" essentially says this is an improper criminal prosecution, not based in facts or law, and prevents Eric Adams and NYC from properly supporting President Trump's immigration enforcement, and dismissal of the case is proper.
- But that is not quite right, there's a nuanced twist to this. They are saying it is grounded in facts, and want to be able to revive the case later, if Mayor Adams does not properly cooperate with the immigration policies (and perhaps other considerations) of the Trump Administration.
- But they are also is attacking the motives of former prosecutors (from the same office) including the former U.S. Attorney(s) (leader of the office) and line assistant US Attorneys (who did the work).
- This "side" includes the current DOJ, including Emil Bove, Acting Deputy Attorney General (the acting number 2 official in the US DOJ and former personal defense attorney for President Donald Trump), and now Todd Blanche (the confirmed number 2 official in the US DOJ), the Attorney General (Pam Bondi) and others who support his position.
Normally, the different "sides" in a criminal prosecution are the prosecution (government) and defense. Here, current government officials disagree with government officials who resigned over the disagreement.

Which view is correct and why?

Is this a reasonable disagreement among reasonable people?
- Probably not, because each side indicates this is not simply a reasonable disagreement.
  - Each side has strongly disagreed with the other side.
  - The current DOJ (Bove/Blanche) have taken the highly unusual step of quoting texts and drafts of prior prosecutors to undermine their position (what would normally be confidential and protected "attorney work product"). They directly have attacked the motives of the prosecution, and prior leaders in the SDNY.
Is one side the view of a "good prosecutor", and the other the view of a "bad prosecutor"? Is one side more ethical than the other side?
Was this an unethical instruction to dismiss this corruption prosecution?
Was there a corrupt deal to end a proper corruption prosecution?
What motivates each side's position? Facts, truth, law, justice? Or other considerations?
Do personal relationships and prior representations impact an official's view or commitment to impartial, objective justice? (Prior representations?)
Is current DOJ trying to thread a legal needle? Arguing the case is tainted by bad prior prosecutors and motives, but the facts of the case are strong enough that the case should be revived in the future if they want?
Many more questions can be asked.

3. Timeline and documents with brief summary

I host some documents here for your convenience and ease of researching these first steps. Documents were obtained via the internet from other sources (thank you). Then it includes commentary, opinion, and questions for evaluation.

Case info: United States v. Eric Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH) (filed in the Southern District of New York, by federal prosecutors, against Mayor Eric Adams. "DEH" indicates it is/was assigned to Federal District Court Judge Dale E. Ho)

2025-02-10 Memo Bove to USA SDNY Sassoon, Memo from Emil Bove to SDNY Acting US Attorney Danielle Sassoon to dismiss the case without prejudice.

Comment: Vinny from My Cousin Vinny would ask about this 2/10/2025 initial memo from Emil Bove: "Does it hold water?" Also, were there good justifications to omit reasonings here, which were later presented in his letter of 2/13/2025?

2025-02-12 Letter Sassoon to Bondi , Letter from SDNY Acting US Attorney Danielle Sassoon to Attorney General Pam Bondi replying to the memo from Emil Bove.

Comment: This 2/12/2025 letter from Acting USA Sassoon is a masterful summary of facts, law and justice. It is worth a read. It shows ethics and courage, making a difficult decision, sacrificing her position.

2025-02-13 Letter Bove to Sassoon, Letter from Emil Bove to Danielle Sassoon.

Comment: The 2/13/2025 letter from Emil Bove is quite different from his earlier memo. Are his positions internally consistent, even before considering what others say about it? He's got his own opinion, or at least a position he is advancing. Does he seem credible, reasonable? Does the tone and the threats in this letter add to his credibility, or detract from it?

2025-02-14 appx Email Scotten to Bove, Email from AUSA Hagan Scotten to Emil Bove, resigning his position as a result of Emil Bove's directions and communications (date estimated, either 2/13 or 2/14) and see notable quote below.

Comment: The 2/14/2025 (or 2/13) resignation email from AUSA Hagan Scotten to Emil Bove will become historic (read his full letter), including these lines:

"... any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me." Scotten Email (emphasis added).

2025-02-14 Motion to Dismiss by Emil Bove, Prosecutor motion to dismiss the indictment, "without prejudice" meaning the government could bring the case in the future. "Nolle prosequi" is Latin and basically means drop the case for now.

Comment: The use of Latin phrases such as "Nolle prosequi", especially in a motion title, is unfortunate because it is one of those legalisms that makes law and our system of law more confusing than it should be for non-lawyers. Where possible and when it does not affect legal issues, court filings should be written in plain English.

The 2/14/2025 motion to dismiss was signed by Emil Bove, and with the names of two other DOJ attorneys on it. Reporting indicates that Emil Bove threatened to fire an entire section unless someone agreed to file the motion.

2025-02-18 Order of Judge Dale Ho, ordering a conference on 2/19/2025.

2025-02-19 conference: A conference (hearing) was held in court before SDNY Judge Dale Ho, where the judge asked questions of the defendant and the attorneys for each side about the motion to dismiss and certain facts.

2025-02-21 Order of Judge Dale Ho, vacating the trial date (e.g., putting trial planning on hold) and requiring more input from each party. He appointed Paul Clement , a respected lawyer, to assist with the Judge's decision making as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to aid the court's decision making. The "adversarial process" typically exists in court cases, but not in this unusual case recently, so Mr. Clement's brief will be able to help the court. Each party will also submit a filing.

2025-03-07 Amicus Brief of Paul Clement, who recommended the indictment be dismissed with prejudice, meaning it should be dismissed in a way that it can never be revived again, and that it would be improper to allow it to be revived again. Recap: this respected lawyer was appointed by the court to weigh in as a "friend of the court".

2025-03-07 DOJ Response by Bove and Blanche, these (current) top DOJ officials argue why the case should be dismissed without prejudice, so it can be revived later.

Comment: DOJ takes the time to attack the former prosecutors on the case, and even quote their text messages as they discussed their legal strategy. In simple terms, current DOJ argues the former prosecutors on the case were improperly motivated, the case is "sort of" tainted because of them, but the case is also solid enough that it should be revived in the future if DOJ (in its own discretion) sees fit. Recap: both Bove and Blanch were personal defense attorneys for now president Trump in his previous criminal cases. Then Bove effectively was in charge of DOJ for a period of time, then Pam Bondi was confirmed as DOJ #1 (Attorney General), then Todd Blanche was confirmed as DOJ #2 (Deputy Attorney General).

2025-03-18 Judge's Order on motion to seal Adams case, Judge Ho responds to the US DOJ motion to seal exhibits in support of their motion to dismiss the indictment, and directs that versions on the public docket will be filed with only limited redactions (phone numbers and email addresses.

Future events:

The judge will eventually decide whether to dismiss the case or not.
- He will almost certainly dismiss it, but will he do it "with prejudice" or "without prejudice"?
  - If it is dismissed "without prejudice" as the current DOJ wants, the government can revive it if it wants (If Mayor Adams does not do what the federal government wants him to do, on immigration and perhaps on other matters too?)
  - If it is dismissed "with prejudice" then this criminal case is over forever.
- Are there other options? Yes, but they are unlikely.
  - Will the judge give the government the option to dismiss it with prejudice or proceed with the case? (unlikely)
  - Will the judge require the government to go forward with the case? *unlikely)
It is likely the case will eventually be dismissed, since both sides of this legal dispute (the government and defendant) want this to happen.
- The government is represented by the U.S. DOJ, the federal prosecutors (who are currently employed by DOJ)
  - In an unheard of twist, the former prosecutors who worked the case think do not agree with the current DOJ position, and many have resigned rather than put their name to certain filings.
  - In most government cases, "line prosecutors" appear in court and sign the filings. In this case, the filings are by Emil Bove and Todd Blanch, high ranking DOJ officials.
- The defense is represented by defense counsel. Alex Spiro (who also happens to represent Elon Musk on many matters)
- Paul Clement was appointed by the court (judge) to assess various facts and issues to aid the court.

Additional filings

This criminal case has been going on for while, and there have been a lot of recent filings. I don't list every filing in the case.

4. "Good prosecutors" and ethics in government

There is great value in thinking like a good prosecutor, even if you never will be a prosecutor, and never want to be one. (My new book on Cyberlaw discusses this). Every prosecutor is supposed to follow the facts, law, and seek justice. To do what is fair and in the interests of justice. A prosecutor is a unique type of lawyer, whose duty is justice, not just to "win."

As you assess this case, think like that "good prosecutor" would. Put aside your political party, put aside whether you support the current administration or dislike it, trust it or not. Criminal cases should be considered through that lens of a good prosecutor.

Unfortunately, not every prosecutor is a good prosecutor.

First, recognize that even good prosecutors do things that other reasonable people may disagree with, even when they are honestly working towards truth and justice. There are areas of reasonable disagreement. This means we should not demonize prosecutors simply because we disagree.

Second, recognize that even good prosecutors, working honorably, make mistakes.

Third, recognize that not all prosecutors are "good" or working honorably. There have been unethical prosecutors, even corrupt prosecutors in the U.S.

Ethics in government is important, including and especially in our legal system. Ethics basically means government officials who do their duty to serve their constituents and the country, state, or city. They do the right things, for the right reason, using the right process. They do not work to serve themselves, simply stay in power, or line their own pockets or the pockets of their cronies.

Ethics is often hard, and requires going against personal interest and personal convenience. It requires courage, making some people angry, and even perhaps losing your job.

The area of ethics has grey areas and nuances, but also areas of clarity. It is clearly unethical for government officials to commit crimes while in office, especially and including to take bribes or make corrupt deals. Therefore, prosecuting government corruption is important. "Don't commit a crime" is the most basic and lowest threshold of conduct for government officials. If we can master that and agree on that, then we can move on to discuss some nuances of ethics in government and criminal justice.

5. Other commentary

5.1. Desire to avoid notes during meeting between prosecutors and defense counsel

Usually prosecutors take notes and like notes, especially at an important meeting between defense counsel and prosecutors on a high profile corruption case. Good prosecutors want to know and remember what was actually said, for many important reasons. (e.g., the defense's recollection of what was said will always be favorable to the defense).

But it seems the No 2. in the US DOJ (Bove) did not want any notes taken or maintained in this case, for some reason...

Danielle Sassoon wrote: "I attended a meeting on January 31, 2025, with Mr. Bove, Adams’s counsel, and members of my office. Adams’s attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department’s enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed. Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting’s conclusion." Sassoon Letter, P 3, FN 1.

Many people, for various reasons, do not want a record of what was said or done at a particular time, or as a general rule for their general activities. Ask yourself why.

5.2. Legal disputes are always a dispute, but this is different

Legal disputes are always a "They said, they said", where two sides or attorneys argue opposing views of facts and law.

Almost never does the same side (prosecution) argue with itself. And never in this way.

How do we assess which representative of the prosecution (government) is more reliable or credible on the facts, law, and their view of "justice"? We should look at the words they said or wrote, and look for internal consistency/contradiction, and see what can be corroborated or contradicted by external facts. See how they respond to their own position being tested. We should consider the person's motives, their credibility, reliability, and background.

Which individuals have records for public service to the greater good? Which seem more objective, and which might have personal interests or personal connections at stake?

Do the actions themselves damage governments credibility here and for the future?

Does this public and vehement disagreement damage governments credibility here and for the future? When "government" brings a case and asserts it is just and supported by the facts and law, will we now worry that current or future government personnel will contradict that?

5.3. Will fiction be dead?

I used to get annoyed with criminal justice television and movies because they seemed so unrealistic to me. "That would never happen" I would think, and turn it off.

But this reality is stranger than any fiction and I cannot turn it off. Nor should we tune it out and pretend it is not happening. This is happening, and we need people of courage and ethics, who are willing to speak truth. This is not normal and we should not pretend that it is.

5.4. This is not normal

So many things about these circumstances are not normal, and not what we want for our criminal justice system, our system of government, and our democracy.

This is not normal, let's not pretend it is.

5.5. Use good filenames during a document review process

This gets into minutia but relevant for my interests (and my prior book on Policies and Procedures).

I can imagine the hectic back-and-forth as prosecutors resign and Emil Bove and other remaining DOJ prosecutors draft the motion to dismiss. Within the metadata of the PDF motion to dismiss there is a clue that the Word document might have had this filename:

Microsoft Word - 2025.12.14 DRAFT Nolle Pros - Adams With Facts.DAG Version v3 FINAL FROM CRM.EB3 corrected

My book on policies and procedures suggests a more efficient file naming process as a draft moves through various people and cycles, ultimately to the approved and final version.

Also, clear that type of metadata when appropriate.

Remember, my advice is always for good people trying to do the right thing in good faith.

5.6 Quoting texts and prior drafts of prior prosecutors

The current DOJ (Bove/Blanche) took the highly unusual step in their filing of 3/7/2025 of quoting texts and drafts of prior prosecutors to undermine their position. This would normally be confidential and protected "attorney work product" but they chose to make it public.

This is not normal either.

What were their motives? To advance the case, or attack the individuals?

What does this do for future prosecutors and prosecutions?

6. Disclaimer

As you can tell, there are two (or more) sides to this. I obtained documents via the internet, posted by others, including news outlets (thank you).

This is a quick summary and contains my opinion as well, based on an initial review. Everyone summarizes and emphasizes differently. Go to the original documents (letters, court filings, etc.) to see exactly what each person or party said and how they said it.

I reserve the right to change my opinion upon additional review and as more facts come out.

7. Conclusion

Corruption at any level is horrible, and criminal corruption prosecutions are important for government and criminal justice.

Ethical government officials will always try to do what is right. But unethical government officials will only do what is "right" if they fear a consequence if they do something unethical or illegal. We need that deterrence through an honest criminal justice system, with an honest, proper process.

A corrupt deal to terminate (or pause) a corruption prosecution is especially bad. It is corruption squared.

Everyone should have a basic understanding of law, criminal justice, and ethics, because it affects our lives, and we are a nation of laws. Our democracy and criminal justice system is more fragile than many realize.

This short article has many simplifications, is not tailored to your circumstances and is not legal or consulting advice.

If you want to learn more about law or policy work, there is lots on this site, my Udemy courses, and my books.

8. Additional reading on this site

Ethics
Law
Criminal Law
My Cyberlaw Book has an introduction to criminal law and civil laws, and discusses the importance of thinking like a good prosecutor
My Policies Book is about policies and procedures and management, but gets into the details of document review and finalizing.
My Cousin Vinny reference, see Law in popular media
Online course on Ethics in Government coming someday?

This article is hosted at https://johnbandler.com/prosecutor-resignations-regarding-case-of-mayor-eric-adams, copyright John Bandler, all rights reserved. No claim to the documents I found on the internet, or to letters and emails written by others.

Originally posted 2/14/2025, updated 3/27/2025.