Prosecutor Resignations Regarding Case of Mayor Eric Adams

by John Bandler

This got long, and all the documents are linked in section 4.

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.

2. "Good prosecutors" and ethics in government

My new book on Cyberlaw discusses the value of thinking like a good prosecutor, even if you never will be a prosecutor, and never want to be one. 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." I'll say this early: not every prosecutor is a good prosecutor.Cyberlaw book cover - John Bandler

We also recognize that even good prosecutors make mistakes, or do things that other reasonable people may disagree with. These may be areas of reasonable disagreement, even when prosecutors work towards truth and justice.

Then we need to realize that not all prosecutors are "good". 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.

3. Opposing views

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

  • One side essentially says this is a proper criminal prosecution of Eric Adams, properly grounded in facts and law, fully supported by successive U.S. Attorneys and team, and dismissal would be unethical and unjust.
    • This "side" includes 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.
    • This "side" includes Emil Bove, Acting Deputy Attorney General (the number 2 official in the US DOJ), 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.
  • Is one side the view of a "good prosecutor", and the other the view of a "bad prosecutor"?
  • 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?
  • Many more questions can be asked.

4. Timeline and documents

  • 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)
  • Documents hosted here (obtained via internet)
  • 2025-02-10 Memo Bove to USA SDNY Sassoon  (Memo from Emil Bove to SDNY Acting US Attorney Danielle Sassoon)
  • 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)
  • 2025-02-13 Letter Bove to Sassoon (Letter from Emil Bove to Danielle Sassoon)
  • 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)
  • 2025-02-14 Motion to Dismiss 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.)
    • Side note: The use of Latin phrases such as "Nolle prosequi", especially in a motion title, is unfortunate. It serves to make law and our system of law more confusing than it needs to be for non-lawyers.
  • 2025-02-18 Order of Judge Dale Ho (ordering a conference on 2/19/2025
  • 2025-02-19: A conference in court before Judge Ho, where the judge asked questions of the defendant and the attorneys for each side.
  • 2025-02-21 Order of Judge Dale Ho (vacating the trial date but requiring more inquiry and input from each party, and appointing 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" which typically exists in court cases, but not in this unusual case recently).
  • Future events:
    • The judge asked for additional information, which parties and Mr. Clement (as amicus curiae, friend of the court) will provide.
    • The judge will eventually decide whether to dismiss the case or not.
    • Will it be dismissed "without prejudice" meaning the government can revive it if it wants? (If Mayor Adams does not do the federal government's bidding?)
    • Will the judge require it be dismissed "with prejudice" meaning the case is over forever?
    • Will the judge give the government the option to dismiss it with prejudice?
    • Will the judge require the government to go forward with the case?
    • 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)
      • The defense is represented by defense counsel. Alex Spiro (who also happens to represent Elon Musk on many matters)
      • Paul Clement

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

5. Brief summary and selected quotes

The 2/10/2025 initial memo from Emil Bove. "Does it hold water?" as Vinny from My Cousin Vinny would ask? Were there good justifications to omit reasonings later presented in his letter of 2/13/2025?

The 2/12/2025 letter from Danielle 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.

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?

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).

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.

On 2/19/2025 the Court (SDNY Judge Dale Ho) held a hearing and heard from the prosecution and defense, and asked questions about the motion to dismiss.

On 2/20/2025 the Court issued an order appointing another lawyer as amicus curiae (friend of the court) and requesting more information from all parties.

There is no final decision yet.

What court action and subsequent information will come? The court will issue a written decision. My prediction is the court will grant the motion to dismiss, because it is virtually impossible to force the prosecution to bring an effective case. It will be interesting to see how the court's decision is worded, and whether the dismissal would need to be "with prejudice" or "without prejudice".

6. Other commentary

6.1. 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.

But it seems the No 2. in the US DOJ 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.

6.2. 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?

6.3. 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. 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.

6.4. 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.

6.5. Use good filenames during a document review process

This gets into minutia but relevant for my interests.

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.Policies and Procedures Bandler Book Front Cover

Also, clear that type of metadata when appropriate.

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

8. Conclusion

Corruption at any level is horrible, and criminal corruption prosecutions are important for government and criminal justice. Unethical government officials will only do what is "right" if they fear a consequence if they do something unethical or illegal.

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.

9. Additional reading on this site

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 2/21/2025.