The Deal with Eric Adams is NOT a "Plea Bargain"

In response to my earlier post about the odious and reprehensible Eric Adams deal (“One Step Closer“), several commenters asked why this deal is any different from an ordinary plea bargain deal, in which the government agrees to drop the original charge(s) against a criminal defendant in return for the defendant agreeing to do or not do certain things – e.g., to cooperate with the prosecutors in various related cases, say, or to step down from a managerial role in a certain company, or to stop holding himself out as a financial adviser, etc. The government is agreeing not to prosecute Adams, and Adams is promising to cooperate with federal law-enforcement actions implementing its immigration policies. Why is everyone making such a big deal about it?

It’s a very good question, to which there is a very good answer, which can help explain why the DOJ’s actions are both unprecedented and chilling.

The Adams deal differs from business as usual in three important ways:

First, in an ordinary plea bargain, there’s a plea; that is, the defendant pleads guilty to something that entails lesser punishment than would accompany the original charge.  You’re indicted for murder, say, but in your plea deal the government agrees only to charge you with negligent homicide, and as part of your plea agreement you enter a plea of “Guilty” to that lesser charge.

Here, though, Adams has not entered any plea (other than his original “Not guilty” plea).  The government is simply going to ask the judge to dismiss the corruption charges against him, without requiring him to admit any guilt at all.

Second:  More importantly, in an ordinary plea deal, the court is asked to dismiss the original charges with prejudice.  This means that after the prosecutor drops the murder charge against you, that charge cannot be re-instated at a later date. You can be prosecuted later if you violate the terms of the plea deal; that is, if you promise as part of the deal to cooperate with prosecutors in related cases against your co-defendants but then refuse to do so, you can be prosecuted for that.  But the murder charge can’t be revived once it has been dismissed.

Here, the DOJ is asking the judge to dismiss the criminal charges against Adams without prejudice.  That means that the original charges against Adams will be hanging over his head, and if he does not comply with the terms of the agreement, the prosecutors can re-institute the original corruption charges against Adams if it wants to.

Adams has, apparently, agreed to cooperate with federal ICE agents in a specific way – to allow ICE agents to interview detainess at the Rikers Island Detention Center.

Next week the Attorney General tells him: “ICE would like to have access to New York City high schools as well. And all their personnel records.  And tax records for all personnel.”  And she reminds him – gently – that if he doesn’t cooperate, they will reinstate the corruption charges against him.

You’re not nervous yet?

And third: the quid pro quo requires Adams to take certain steps in his official capacity as Mayor of New York. The City of New York is not a defendant in the original action; only Eric Adams is, in his individual capacity. Adams is supposed to make official decisions based on his assessment, right or wrong, about the needs of the people of New York – not on the basis of whether it keeps his ass out of jail.

Sill not nervous?

The post The Deal with Eric Adams is NOT a “Plea Bargain” appeared first on Reason.com.