United States v. MANCUSO
1:24-cr-00496
| D.D.C. | Feb 10, 2025Background
- Adam Mancuso was charged with four misdemeanors stemming from his conduct at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, including entering restricted areas and disorderly conduct.
- Evidence against Mancuso included FBI surveillance, photos, and video documenting his presence inside the Capitol and interactions with police.
- On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a Proclamation pardoning most individuals involved in the Capitol events, directing dismissal of pending cases.
- The government moved to dismiss Mancuso’s case with prejudice per Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), relying solely on the Proclamation.
- The court noted that the government provided no specific factual or legal justification for dismissal aside from the Proclamation and disagreed with the characterization of the prosecutions as a “grave national injustice.”
- The court concluded it must dismiss the charges under Rule 48(a) but did so without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of future prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should dismiss the charges against Mancuso per Rule 48(a) based on a presidential Proclamation | The government (USA) argues the Proclamation requires dismissal of all pending January 6-related cases with prejudice | Mancuso did not file a response regarding dismissal | Court must grant dismissal, but only without prejudice |
| If Rule 48(a) permits a district court to deny a government motion to dismiss based on the court’s disagreement with the executive’s reason | Government: Court’s role is limited; cannot deny motion based on public policy disagreement | n/a | Court agrees: Under precedent, cannot deny based on disagreement |
| Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice | Government seeks dismissal with prejudice due to Proclamation | n/a | Dismissal granted without prejudice because the government’s rationale is not based on merits or evidence |
| Validity of the Proclamation’s assertion of "grave national injustice" in past prosecutions | Government cites Proclamation as authority; no factual grounds provided | n/a | Court rejects the characterization, citing thorough and fair prosecutions |
Key Cases Cited
- Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985) (government's broad discretion in deciding whom to prosecute)
- Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) (court's limited review under Rule 48(a))
- United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (scope of court’s authority under Rule 48(a))
- United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (court cannot deny Rule 48(a) motion based on disagreement with prosecutorial discretion)
- Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339 (1994) (remarking on rarity of dismissal with prejudice in criminal law)