Federal prosecutor admits mistake, begs for leniency (Withheld Evidence)

The Boston Globe ^ | Jonathan Saltzman

[buccaneer81]

Federal prosecutor admits mistake, begs for leniency May 12, 2009 01:59 PM By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff

A federal prosecutor today acknowledged that she withheld evidence that could have helped clear a defendant in a gun case but said it was an inadvertent mistake and implored the chief judge of the US District Court in Massachusetts not to impose sanctions that could derail her career.

[Chode]

why is it that those who beg for mercy, are usually the last ones to ever show any???

burn the witch...

[Eaker]

That’s a start!

[Blood of Tyrants]

Obama’s solution will be to fire the judge.

[chris_bdba]

“derail her career”? She should not have a career after this!

[Lurker]

If it were up to me I'd toss this b**** into the General Population in a mens prison for a couple of years.

L

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

I’ll take “Who is Mike Nifong?” for 500, abb.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Sullivan failed to disclose that a Boston police officer's testimony at a pretrial hearing contradicted what the office had repeatedly told the prosecutor beforehand. The defendant was Darwin E. Jones, a Mattapan man who was arrested in July 2007 in a Boston gun case. The truth only came to light, according to Wolf, when the judge reviewed Sullivan's notes of her interviews of the police officer, Rance Cooley.

If I read this right, it sounds as if she, the prosecutor, told he, the police officer, to lie under oath. This would go beyond these two. I would guess there is a conspiracy here. Given the defendant's name and location in the city, he's a black man who got busted for drug possession (later in story). I'm surprised Jesse or Al were not on the job. It looks like they tried to stick a carry without permit charge on him too.

[buccaneer81]

Given the defendant's name and location in the city,

Yep. All I had to see was Mattapan.

[Ken H]

If I read this right, it sounds as if she, the prosecutor, told he, the police officer, to lie under oath.

Good catch. That's how I read it as well. If we had a Dept. of Justice worthy of the name, those two would be under criminal investigation.

[ltc8k6]

Ha ha!

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

If I read this right, it sounds as if she, the prosecutor, told he, the police officer, to lie under oath

If I remember my Law and Order correctly, subornation of perjury is something of a no no, and judges tend to frown on it?

[Constitutions Grandchild]

Well, if we're keeping lists, I have one or two I'd like to add, but what the heck “rules are only meant to be broken,” right? I wonder if any of the offenders ever get that little “witness” in the pit of their stomachs that just maybe they might not oughta’ pull some of the crap they pull just to keep score of wins and losses or get the “silly” cases off their desks or get a promotion.

Leniency, huh? Hm...m...m. I'll have to think about that.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

Okay, I've thought about it. No. “Sanctions” are a better deal than those I know who have been falsely arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned. Sanctions with an unsealed file and a permanent record. Yup. I'm thinking what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. She won't go to prison, but she'll live a life ruined by her own “bad choices”. She sounds young, so she'll have a long time to repent in leisure.

It isn't unforgiveness, but it is justice.