Opinion ID: 411138
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Leave of Court Requirement

Text: 11 This Court has grappled with the interpretation of the leave of court requirement of Rule 48(a) before. 5 Without going into detail, a brief historical sketch would provide some background for our analysis. 6 At common law, the prosecutor had the unrestricted authority to enter a nolle prosequi 7 without the consent of the court at any time before the empaneling of the jury. A preliminary draft of Rule 48 adopted the common-law rule, adding the requirement that the prosecutor state his reasons for seeking a dismissal. The Supreme Court, however, added the words leave of court and deleted the requirement of a statement of reasons for dismissal. As amended by the Supreme Court, the rule was adopted by Congress. 8 A thorough examination of the history of Rule 48(a) led this Court in Cowan to conclude that the leave of court requirement was added to allow the courts to exercise discretion over the propriety of a prosecutorial motion to dismiss. 9 Although the Supreme Court has not delineated the circumstances in which this discretion may be exercised, 10 the courts have agreed that the primary purpose of the rule is protection of a defendant's rights: 11 [t]he purpose of the rule is to prevent harassment of a defendant by charging, dismissing and re-charging without placing a defendant in jeopardy. United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir.1965), cert. denied sub nom. Cox v. Hauberg, 381 U.S. 935, 85 S.Ct. 1767, 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965). 12 12 This prosecutorial harassment involves charging, dismissing, and subsequently commencing another prosecution at a different time or place deemed more favorable to the prosecution. United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615 (D.C.Cir.1974). 13 The key factor in a determination of prosecutorial harassment is the propriety or impropriety of the Government's efforts to terminate the prosecution--the good faith or lack of good faith of the Government in moving to dismiss. 14 The Government must not be motivated by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest. 15