The trial judge in the Ali Sadr Hasheminejad case is not yet ready to rule on the two outstanding issues facing the Court, and has ordered the parties to submit briefs, setting forth their respective positions :
(1) The proper procedural mechanism for dismissal of the Ali Sadr case; The defense wants a New Trial granted, and then an order of dismissal with prejudice. The Government wants simply an order of dismissal. Neither party has submitted legal authorites for their argument, and the Court has ordered briefs to be filed this month on a specific schedule,
(2) Was there Bad Faith ? There are factual disputes among the parties as to whether any Government lawyers acted in Bad Faith in the case.The Court did note that "it may be necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing in order to independently assess whether the issues that have arisen were the product of bad faith, knowing misrepresentation, or an intentional failure to comply with discovery obligations."
Again the Court stated that the Government conceded that the Court retained jurisdiction, after any dismissal of the case, to determine whether any Government lawyers engaged in ethical violations or prosecutorial misconduct. Whether any punishment will be meted out to government attorneys cannot be estimated at this time, but there are specific factual disputes, between individual AUSAs attorneys, possible errors of judgment, and even credibility determinations which will ultimately need to be made, and as there have been, or are, other SDNY cases where discovery issues have been raised.
The complete text of the Order appears below.