Prosecutors Brenda Morris and Joseph Bottini
Posted on 04/07/2009 7:55:37 PM PDT by jazusamo
The dismissal of Ted Stevens' conviction and the potential contempt charges against the lawyers who prosecuted him could hinder several ongoing corruption cases against other politicians, according to legal experts.
While the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the Stevens trial are limited to his case alone, the damage to the Department of Justice Public Integrity Section may make judges more willing to listen to defense attorneys who challenge evidence. Jurors may also be more willing to listen to claims of innocence by politicians under scrutiny, experts say.
Some Department of Justice watchers predict there will be staff changes in the leadership of the Public Integrity Section — moves that could slow down criminal investigations into other lawmakers.
Among the pending cases are charges against Reps. William Jefferson (D-La.) and Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), who have been indicted on a host of corruption charges, including bribery and fraud. Former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) has been implicated in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, and Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska), John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.) have found themselves drawn into other criminal probes by the Justice Department, although no charges have been filed in those cases.
“It’s going to really jangle the Public Integrity Section because they’ve got pending cases, they’re going to be in the middle of a criminal investigation of sorts,” and they have the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility investigating their actions in the Stevens case, said Stan Brand, a well-known Washington lawyer.
“I think it is going to impact all these cases because I think two things will happen – one is [prosecutors] are going to be reluctant to bring cases that aren’t buttoned down, and the other is where are the supervisors? Who is going to sign off [on prosecutions] and what are the internal procedures in these cases? It’s gotta slow it down.”
Convictions in public corruption cases can help boost a prosecutor’s career, although the prosecutors in the Stevens’ trail now find their former target walking out of court a free man while they themselves are under criminal investigation.
“Public corruption cases tend to warp the morality of prosecutors, I think,” said John Wesley Hall, an Arkansas attorney and president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. “I guess it just warps your sense of right and wrong.”
Judge Emmet Sullivan, who set aside the Stevens conviction on Tuesday, blasted the prosecution team that conducted the case during Tuesday’s session, saying it was the worst example of prosecutorial “mishandling and misconduct” that he had seen “in nearly 25 years on the bench.”
Sullivan was referring to the revelation that prosecutors failed to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence from Bill Allen, the chief witness against the former senator.
Sullivan has appointed Henry Schuelke, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee, to scrutinize the actions of six DOJ officials involved in the case, including William Welch, the interim head of the Public Integrity Section, and Brenda Morris, lead prosecutor in the case.
“I do not take this decision lightly. I certainly hope that the record will find no intentional obstruction of justice,” Sullivan told a packed courtroom that included Stevens, his wife, family members and supporters. “Nevertheless, the court has an obligation to determine what happened here and respond appropriately, and I intend to do so.”
Sullivan added that he “anticipates and expects the United States’ full cooperation in any further proceedings.”
The Justice Department released a short statement following Sullivan’s announcement, but it did not comment specifically on the status of Welch, Morris and other prosecutors in the case.
“After reviewing this case, the attorney general determined last week that it should be dismissed because certain evidence was not provided to the defense and it was in the interests of justice not to proceed to a new trial. We will review the order regarding an investigation of prosecutors' conduct and will continue to cooperate with the court on this matter,” the DOJ statement said.
“We take seriously the court's comments regarding the discovery process and will review them for possible future actions. As the Attorney General indicated last week, the fact that there is an inquiry into the prosecutors' actions does not mean or imply any determination has been made about their conduct." Barry Pollack, a criminal defense attorney with the firm Miller & Chevalier, said the impact of Judge Sullivan’s ruling in the Stevens’ case, made with the support of Attorney General Eric Holder, will play out at several different levels.
“In a micro level, you would certainly think it would have an impact in the case involving Rep. Young because you’ve got some of the same witnesses and maybe some of the same investigative agents and some of the same prosecutors,” Pollack said. “So to the extent that their credibility has been damaged, that may have a very direct impact on any case that they would try to bring against Rep. Young.”
Pollack added: “Will judges be a little more vigilant in policing the Department of Justice in meeting its obligations as a result of this experience? I think that they will be in public corruption cases and cases involving the Public Integrity Section in particular.”
The problems with this division are already flaring up in the Jefferson and Renzi cases.
In both cases, attorneys for the former lawmakers have alleged that prosecutors and federal investigators overstepped their authority as they sought indictments against their clients.
For instance, FBI agents conducted an unprecedented raid on Jefferson’s congressional office on May 20, 2006, but were later forced by a federal appeals court to exclude that evidence from the case.
FBI agents also taped numerous phone calls involving Renzi, a move that has resulted in a legal challenge from both Renzi’s attorneys and a bipartisan group of lawmakers that includes Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The lawmakers claim that the Justice Department violated Renzi’s constitutional protection under the Speech or Debate Clause. That clause prevents members and staff for legal action resulting from legislative activities.
Some white-collar criminal experts, however, believe the effects of the Stevens case may be limited.
“I don’t think if you’re former Congressman Jefferson, you can say, ‘Look at what the Public Integrity Section did in the Stevens’ case, and therefore you have to dismiss my indictment or you have to undertake an investigation” into prosecution wrongdoing, said Aitan Goelman, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. “You can’t say, ‘Look, there was prosecutorial misconduct in other cases, therefore there’s a reason to look for it here.’”
But one government watchdog group said both Stevens and the Justice Department were in the wrong, noting that the dismissal does not mean that Stevens was innocent, despite what he and his lawyers claimed following dismissal of his conviction.
“This sordid mess reflects equally poorly on the Public Integrity Section and Sen. Stevens, but in the end it is the public that has lost the most: a corrupt politician has escaped punishment and future prosecutions of politicians have been jeopardized,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
But Stevens WAS a corrupt crook, was he not? Or is someone disputing that? Till I hear otherwise, I assume the prosecutors just violated “ethical” standards against a common criminal.
The Department of Justice Public Integrity Section is a joke, IMHO.
Before the DOJ starts working on any corruption cases, it ought to clean up its own act.
Hopefully it won’t hinder fed investigation of PMA and other companies in re to Murtha.
That’s my understanding.
There is absolutely not a single shred of credible evidence that he was corrupt, and it is outrageous for Soros funded, Dem controlled CREW to make this claim.
What about the “Home Improvements” done by the government contractors?
Thanks for posting. I’ve been saying all along that the Renzi indictment was politically motivated. (To the Bush haters. I know, the indictment was brought by the DemocRAT prosecutors while that evil Bush was president).
Agreed but because the prosecutors in the Stevens case were unethical doesn’t mean they all are and we know there’s many corrupt politicians.
were these thugs the same ones who prosecuted Traficant?
In the meantime, prosecutions (and convictions)of our military personnel roll merrily along unchecked. They talked about this on the Behenna interview last night.
At the very least, I would say we get some of the worse offending prosecutors, hang them by their thumbs, and poke them with sharp sticks.
There is something very wrong here.
I don’t know but would doubt it. Wasn’t Traficant prosecuted in his own state?
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said Tuesday that in his 25 years on the bench, he had never seen anything approaching the “mishandling and misconduct” perpetrated by the government in the case of former Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens, who was convicted on corruption charges in October.
At a hearing Tuesday morning in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on the government’s motion to dismiss, Sullivan said Stevens’ case was symptomatic of a larger trend of misconduct. The judge urged his colleagues around the country to enter exculpatory evidence orders at the outset of every criminal case, and to require that exculpatory material be turned over in a usable form.
http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/ted-stevens-prosecution-
Senator Stevens was similarly prejudiced by the government’s disclosures regarding whether Dave Anderson had been promised immunity. The government represented in its September 9 Brady letter that Anderson had not been promised immunity and that his March 2008 affidavit to the contrary was false.
Anderson testified consistently with this letter at trial. Based on the government’s September 9 representation and Anderson’s testimony, defense counsel chose not to cross-examine Anderson.
After trial, however, Anderson informed the Court that his testimony regarding immunity was “simply not true” and that the government instructed him “on how to sugar coat [the informal immunity agreement] and get it swept under the rug during the trial.” Dkt. 243-2 at 1-2. Moreover, he asserted that paragraph 16 of the September 9 Brady letter was “not true” and “completely false.” Id. at 1.
The home improvements were done by a private contractor, VECO,not a govt contractor.. Stevens paid $150,000 for that work. In an interview on April 18, 1008 which DoJ never turned over to Stevens, Veco’s foreman Allen, said the work was worth $80K (about half what Stevens paid for it and about 1/3 that the govt claimed it was worth). Stevens also wrote to Allen reminding him that he was to be billed for all work. In the April 18, interview Allen conceded this. At trial , however, he perjured himself and said that a man named Pearson had told him that Stevens didn’t ever really mean that.
Again if the prosecutors had turned over the notes, the defense would have known that Allen was lying on the stand, something only the prosecutors knew.
The govt never claimed there was a bribe involved, that Stevens was asked to do anything for VECO or that he did it. In fact, all they charged him with was not reporting the VECO “gift” properly on his ethics disclosure form to the Senate..If the work was worth $80k and he paid $150k for it, he had no “gift” and nothing to report.
Now, I think you shouldn’t shoot off your mouth and accuse someone of being corrupt when you havent even bothered to learn the facts.
I think it was a federal prosecution. And I’ve always believed that it was because of his criticism of the clinton administration.
I agree, the prosecutors that have prosecuted former military in federal courts have a horrendous record of abuse.
Prosecutors Brenda Morris and Joseph Bottini
Thanks for you post and links, kcvl.
Lead prosecutor Brenda Morris & former Senator Ted Stevens
Yes, it was a federal prosecution but was done in the Circuit that his home state was in and Stevens was tried in the Washington DC Circuit, I believe.
“Public corruption cases tend to warp the morality of prosecutors, I think,” said John Wesley Hall, an Arkansas attorney and president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. “I guess it just warps your sense of right and wrong.”
It is politics that warps the morality of everyone — including lawyers — at the federal, state and local levels.
We truly need term limits to keep these people from becoming too entrenched.
It is time to give people — like you and me — a shot at running this government. And get rid of the elitism, fraud, waste and criminal activities that occur there daily.
We couldn’t do any worse.
The way I read it, it could tilt slightly in favor of the defense at trial since judges and juries may have doubts about the credibilty of the prosecutors.
I figure with the slander suits, the possible House ethics investigation, and the potential federal criminal indictment over PMA, we've got a fighting chance that one or more of these will stick to Murtha. I'm hoping all three, but I'm the eternal optimist. :)
I have no confidence that the system will do anything to Murtha. Sorry, but I just don’t think they have it in them.
OK, back to sharpening my stick...
I agree, especially on the term limits.
I don’t know if the corruption in the last 30 or 40 years is actually worse with each passing year or I’m just more aware of what’s going on in politics but it seems much worse.
You’re probably right, Smooth. I get nervous when this kind of thing comes up and there’s a possibility Murtha may get nailed again, he has a history of squirming out of things.
I don’t know if I’m right, Jaz, I just know I want to be.
It’s all about power and re-election. If the Dems decide Murtha’s no longer useful and a drag on 2010, they’ll dump him in a heartbeat.
I understand what you’re saying about whether it’s worse now or if we’re just more aware.
I’ve asked myself the same thing.
But given the intrusiveness of cable and the Internet, the cynical side of me suspects it’s the latter.
It has always been bad.
But since when? And what do we do to make it better?
That’s where term limits come in.
Sorry. I was just going by what was presented by the Monolithic Media. This now sounds about as bad as the lying and coverups of Ruby Ridge and Waco! Has Stevens gone on national TV yet to dispute all these allegations? Or won’t they give him a chance?
We can hope. They seem to be pretty enamored of the puke.
It’s in the court filings and rulings some of which has now been picked up by the media.
BTW:http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/prosecutor_of_ted_stevens_also.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.