Hank Schuelke

Anonymous DOJ Statement: “Trust Us”

The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing today to review the results of the Schuelke report on the prosecutorial misconduct in the Ted Stevens case and to entertain the Lisa Murkowski bill requiring disclosure. In response, DOJ submitted a statement for the record, opposing any legislation enforcing its discovery obligations.

When concerns were first raised about the handling of the prosecution of Senator Stevens, the Department immediately conducted an internal review. The Attorney General recognized the importance of ensuring trust and confidence in the work of Department prosecutors and took the extraordinary step of moving to dismiss the case when errors were discovered. Moreover, toensure that the mistakes in the Stevens case would not be repeated, the Attorney General convened a working group to review discovery practices and charged the group with developing recommendations for improving such practices so that errors are minimized. As a result of the working group’s efforts, the Department has taken unprecedented steps, described more fully below, to ensure that prosecutors, agents, and paralegals have the necessary training and resources to fulfill their legal and ethical obligations with respect to discovery in criminal cases. These reforms include a sweeping training curriculum for all federal prosecutors and the requirement–for the first time in the history of the Department of Justice–that every federal prosecutor receive refresher discovery training each year.

In light of these internal reforms, the Department does not believe that legislation is needed to address the problems that came to light in the Stevens prosecution. Such a legislative proposal would upset the careful balance of interests at stake in criminal cases, cause significant harm to victims, witnesses, and law enforcement efforts, and generate substantial and unnecessary litigation that would divert scarce judicial and prosecutorial resources.

In short, DOJ is saying, “trust us. We don’t need a law requiring us to do what case law says we need to.”

Right off the bat, I can think of 5 major problem with this statement:

No one has been held accountable

We are three years past the time when Stevens’ case was thrown out. Yet none of the prosecutors involved have been disciplined in any meaningful way.

No doubt DOJ would say that it will hold prosecutors responsible if and when the Office of Professional Responsibility finds they committed misconduct. But in the interim three years, DOJ as a whole has sent clear messages that it prefers protecting its case to doing anything about misconduct. And–as Chuck Grassley rightly pointed out at the hearing–thus far no one has been held responsible.

This statement may claim DOJ is serious about prosecutorial misconduct. But its actions (and inaction) says the opposite.

Even after this training, discovery problems remain

As the DOJ statement lays out, in response to the Stevens debacle, DOJ rolled out annual training programs for prosecutors to remind them of their discovery obligations.

And yet, last year, Leonie Brinkema found that prosecutors in the Jeff Sterling case had failed to turn over critical evidence about prosecution witnesses–one of the problems with the Stevens prosecution. The prosecutor involved? William Welch, whom Schuelke accused of abdicating his leadership role in the Stevens case (note, DOJ says the CIA is at fault for the late discovery; but Welch is, after all, the prosecutor who bears responsibility for it).

If William Welch can’t even get discovery right after his involvement in this case and, presumably, undergoing the training DOJ promises will fix the problem, then training is not enough to fix the problem.

Eric Holder won’t run DOJ forever

The statement focuses on Holder’s quick decision to dismiss the case against Stevens, as if that, by itself, guards against any similar problems in the future. But before Holder was AG, Michael Mukasey was–and Judge Emmet Sullivan grew so exasperated with Mukasey’s stonewalling on this case, he ordered him to personally respond to questions about the case.

Continue reading

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @palewire Fair question. I should have. @ourmaninchicago
32sreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ourmaninchicago Talk to me when CNN covers it for 24 hours.
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ncweaver https://t.co/am9OmQJua9 Note WL Saudi cables claimed Sauds responsible tho may not be real.
3mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ncweaver I'm still interested in time someone spamouflaged IRGC just as the time FBI was trying to trap them in sting.
6mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ncweaver Oh, was just envisioning a spying target (admittedly, not primarily via XKS) that wasn't really about threats.
8mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ncweaver It's the Merkel threat I'm really worried about.
9mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JBauerofPrivacy I'm not so much worried about what you're telling your kids as I am that you're listening to all this Journey.
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @matthewstoller: Age demographic split on Greek referendum vote was the same split as in Scotland.
14mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @_cypherpunks_ Not me. I'm hoping the banksters sweat some, but I'm not optimistic.
16mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Zero alleged ISIS attacks. And so the press will snooze on this... https://t.co/8FvDjyXKWa
23mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @nancyleong @espinsegall You know, I think we actually do more often than not. It is just that some issues are magnified. Also, I love Eric!
29mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ncweaver Did you mean "pulling threats" or "pulling threads"?
35mreplyretweetfavorite
July 2015
S M T W T F S
« Jun    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031