In Arlington County, Virginia, judges are pushing back against attempts by Parisa Dehghani-Tafti, the County prosecutor, to dismiss certain marijuana cases due to her disagreement with Virginia drug law. As we have reported, Dehghani-Tafti was elected prosecutor with the considerable help of George Soros money. She promised, among other things, to refuse to prosecute some marijuana cases.
Dehghani-Tafti is keeping that promise, and local judges are not amused. According to the Washington Post, when she moved to dismiss a marijuana possession charge shortly after taking office, the judge, Daniel Fiore II, demanded a written brief from the prosecutor explaining the reasons for the dismissal. He then scheduled oral argument on the motion.
The Post reports that Judge Fiore refused to dismiss the case based on Dehghani-Tafti’s unwillingness to prosecute. However, he dismissed it because he found the lab tests insufficient to support a prosecution.
Judge Fiore and three other members of the Arlington County bench have entered an order requiring prosecutors to spell out in detail and in non-conclusory terms the reasons supporting the “good cause” required by Virginia law for all “nolle pros” or non-prosecution motions. Dehghani-Tafti responded by petitioning the Virginia Supreme Court for mandamus.
Does this sound familiar? It does if you have been following Michael Flynn’s case. In that action, the Department of Justice moved to dismiss the case, but Judge Emmet Sullivan did not promptly dismiss it. Instead, he called for briefing and a hearing.
Flynn petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for mandamus. The matter is still pending before that court. [UPDATE: The en banc D.C. Circuit has just denied Flynn’s petition for mandamus]
The Post’s Tom Jackman concludes his story on the dispute in Arlington between Dehghani-Tafti and the court by citing the Flynn case. He quotes a brief by Republican attorneys general supporting the right of the executive branch to have a case dismissed without any exercise of judgment by the judiciary. He does not quote any of the briefs that take the opposite view, which I believe is also that of the Post.
Why would he? Jackman’s story slants in favor of the Soros-backed left-wing prosecutor.
But there’s an important distinction between the Dehghani-Tafti dispute and the Flynn case — a distinction that cuts heavily against the Arlington prosecutor. The Justice Department dismissed the Flynn case because it concluded that it couldn’t prove a key element of the case against Flynn. This kind of decision is invested with prosecutors.
Dehghani-Tafti refuses to prosecute some marijuana cases because she disagrees with the law that makes them a crime. But it’s the people of Virginia, acting through their legislature, who are invested with deciding what is and what is not a crime.
Simply put, Dehghani-Tafti is trying to nullify a law. That’s not the role of a prosecutor.
As Judge Fiore explained in the case discussed above:
Essentially, the Commonwealth argues public policy as the reason to disregard a criminal statute that was fully considered, voted on and passed by both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly. The Court will not sanction an executive’s opinion that a law passed by the Virginia legislature is an ineffectual law, for in doing so the Court would be partisan and thus violate the Judicial Canon prohibiting partisan consideration when rendering an opinion or judgment of the Court.
Makes sense to me. Virginia law on marijuana possession might be too harsh. If so, the legislature, not some local prosecutor, should modify the law.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.