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
JimWhiteGNV @JamesRisen Is there one nationwide contract for screening put out by MLB or does each club contract it out? Who's making $$ off this?
3mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @conor64 @charlescwcooke Hmmm, what is it; have link?
4mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Come on folks, seriously, getting boob jobs for young Melgen hotties probably as close to good Foreign Relations work as Menendez has done.
7mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @stephenbottomly: The real surprise is why anyone believed him in the first place! "@haaretzcom: Netanyahu never believed in a Palestini…
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @OKnox: Menendez allegedly asked for & got Melgen to pony up 649,611 American Express points to pay for stay here http://t.co/dLCanNnNia
12mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @JamesRisen: MLB says it wants shorter games, but teams are telling fans to arrive an hour early to deal with metal detectors. 3 hour ga…
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PaulBlu @rickhasen So, if you think that AMK blurb is exculpatory for Menendez, how do you explain Don Siegelman case?
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @nickmartin "Accessories After the Fact"
17mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Ali_Gharib Love yer freezer.
19mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Don't know where Menendez prosecution will lead, but for all you legal "experts" out there bloating about how weak it is, see Siegelman, Don
22mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @rickhasen PIN is foolish? There is a track record there, see: Edwards, John and Stevens, Ted.
24mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz I feel horrible for Bob Menendez, because he was a Democratic stalwart supporting Don Siegelman! Oh, wait, that's just not true, is it?
29mreplyretweetfavorite
April 2015
S M T W T F S
« Mar    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930