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
bmaz RT @JasonLeopold: Bob Baer, ex CIA & CNN intel analyst, now just faking it on CNN: Pamela Gellar "holds diverse views. She is not known for…
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JasonLeopold Or is Bob acknowledging that didn't count for inside reasons?
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JasonLeopold Does Baer's alzheimers make him forget Amerithrax?
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @walterwkatz We had this conversation some time back. Still true, and bonkers that anybody, including dopey legislators, think otherwise
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @walterwkatz: Massively frustrated at any policies or bills that allow cops to see video of force before writing report. More to come on…
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Will_Bunch @rickperlstein I double checked to be sure. RFK announced March16 (though it was expected by then); LBJ recused on March 31.
6hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JasonLeopold Get out!
6hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JasonLeopold Wait, they found time to cover it in between their food and pot taped programming??
6hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Will_Bunch @rickperlstein Nice piece. The only thing might add was that was likely RFK as much or more than McCarthy that ejected LBJ.
6hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Baltimore, Bernie, and the coming 'Nixonland' http://t.co/yeinu9qpxc via @phillydotcom Fascinating thoughts by @Will_Bunch Important read.
6hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Johngcole Check out the feed of @DaveedGR His info is not completely confirmed, but looks solid.
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @joanwalsh -urg!
7hreplyretweetfavorite
May 2015
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31