judge pillard. judge pillard: on the question does anything8a other than protects the defendant's interests against harassment, and just probing further on the question of whether it is actually open what example,ects, for prosecute two real -- prosecutorial power favoring defendants the government wants to protect. thatnk it is clear footnote 15 really leaves open the question of whether 48a fits more broadly. a motionourt can deny to dismiss if it was prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest. so it is something other than the defendant's protection against harassment. you may be right that there is 48athe case to deny a motion, but it is not a clear and indisputable right against such inquiry. there is not a clear and indisputable right against the 48aanytion of rule circumstance when the motion to vacate was clearly prompted e it was against the public interest. ms. powell: there is when the government tries to drop -- decides to drop the prosecution. is a pillard: that

judge pillard: go ahead. saysall: even at 622 it surely the executive has ace -- has to supply a reason. judge weber says the court cannot deny the motion because his conception of the public interest differs from that of the prosecutor. i don't know how to square that up with the petition that makes clear that the district court is going to conduct an independent inquiry into whether it steel it satisfied -- even if the court disagrees with what the panel did i think sending it back to the district court, it would be helpful to provide some guidance for the district court on the fairly limited role for the district court. downourt was aware it came -- it relied on the statements it integrated separations of powers cases from the supreme court. armstrong, d.o.e., wade. judge pillard: none of which involved -- >> get through the call and get through this one. page 622 the: on requirement of judicial improve will entitles the judge to obtain and evaluate the prosecutor -- thank you. >> thank you. >> judge wilki

judge pillard: exactly. it is just really striking and remarkable. what is the government worried about if none of the inquiry you are highlighting has even been scheduled? he wanted an argument. is do youast question -- ms.ith ms. pyle powell that it is not the reading of 48 a that imposes the limitation on the court being able to deliberate but the separation of powers overlaying? the history of the rule is that there actually was a robust contemplation that it would be scrutinized whether or not it was clinical favoritism. is it -- political favoritism. is it also your view because the separation of powers grants that unconstitutional? mr. wall: i think that overstates the history. there are some drafts that mention favoritism. but they did not put any mechanism in the rule for allowing the court. i am not sure the history is clear on those. it is reading that language in light of constitutional principles and avoidance. your other question very quickly, when you say what are the real harms, i think that is training all over again. what are the ha