Anchorage--
The Justice Department has released a list of documents it generated in the course of investigating U.S. Rep. Don Young (R.-Alaska), including a "potential witness list and indictment." The release of the list occurred during litigation over a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) regarding the federal government's closed probe of Young's involvement with the notorious Coconut Road project in Florida. Richard Mauer has the story at www.adn.com.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Tips for Prosecutors
Anchorage--
Caleb Mason has a good collection of thoughts on the lessons to be learned from the Schuelke-Shields report on the Ted Stevens trial.
And as long as the federal government sticks with its limited and discretionary system of criminal discovery, these words should serve as a guide:
"If your gut is telling you you do not want the defense to have this, then that tells you you must turn it over....People who don't do that, and hold things too close to the chest, those are the people who get into trouble."
--Mary Patrice Brown, then chief of the Office of Professional Responsibility, the U.S. Department of Justice's internal ethics unit, speech, May 6, 2009.
Caleb Mason has a good collection of thoughts on the lessons to be learned from the Schuelke-Shields report on the Ted Stevens trial.
And as long as the federal government sticks with its limited and discretionary system of criminal discovery, these words should serve as a guide:
"If your gut is telling you you do not want the defense to have this, then that tells you you must turn it over....People who don't do that, and hold things too close to the chest, those are the people who get into trouble."
--Mary Patrice Brown, then chief of the Office of Professional Responsibility, the U.S. Department of Justice's internal ethics unit, speech, May 6, 2009.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Preview of Coming Attractions, Plus a Correction
Anchorage--
Questions I will answer soon in this space and elsewhere:
1. Why did Ted Stevens become such good buddies with Bill Allen?
2. What was the choice Matthew Friedrich, acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the U.S. Justice Department's Criminal Division in the late stages of the George W. Bush administration, thought he faced when he gave the go-ahead for the prosecution of Ted Stevens in July of 2008, and why was that choice false?
3. How are the Ted Stevens trial and the investigation of the Ted Stevens prosecutors similar?
Also, my blog post yesterday reflected misinformation from an outdated webpage. The Dan Fagan Show is no longer on radio. It is on television on Anchorage's Channel 4 and also shown through the show's Facebook page.
Questions I will answer soon in this space and elsewhere:
1. Why did Ted Stevens become such good buddies with Bill Allen?
2. What was the choice Matthew Friedrich, acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the U.S. Justice Department's Criminal Division in the late stages of the George W. Bush administration, thought he faced when he gave the go-ahead for the prosecution of Ted Stevens in July of 2008, and why was that choice false?
3. How are the Ted Stevens trial and the investigation of the Ted Stevens prosecutors similar?
Also, my blog post yesterday reflected misinformation from an outdated webpage. The Dan Fagan Show is no longer on radio. It is on television on Anchorage's Channel 4 and also shown through the show's Facebook page.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
More Talk on Special Counsel's Report on Ted Stevens Prosecutors
Anchorage--
I will be on the Dan Fagan Morning Show tomorrow at 7 a.m., which is simulcast on both TV and radio in Anchorage. I will probably be speaking mostly about the court-appointed special counsel's investigation and report regarding the Ted Stevens prosecutors.
I will be on the Dan Fagan Morning Show tomorrow at 7 a.m., which is simulcast on both TV and radio in Anchorage. I will probably be speaking mostly about the court-appointed special counsel's investigation and report regarding the Ted Stevens prosecutors.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Advocacy Group Rallies to Get Pro-Disclosure Legislation Adopted and Federal Employees Fired
Washington, D.C.--
An organization called Alaskans for Justice is holding a rally today to call for the passage of legislation promoting greater discovery in federal criminal cases. The group is also demanding the firing of two prosecutors and an FBI agent whose conduct was attacked in a special counsel's report on prosecutorial failings in the bungled Ted Stevens prosecution.
Greater understanding of matters referenced at the rally will come from reading two blog posts by experienced lawyers who have worked as federal prosecutors and white collar criminal defense attorneys.
The first is by Michael Volkov, who says "There is no question that mistakes were made in the Stevens case, but the Schuelke-Shields report ignores too many facts, inconsistent evidence and the surrounding managerial dysfunctions to carry much weight." Volkov contends that "In many respects, the Schuelke-Shields report is guilty of the same conduct it complains about in the Stevens case."
Observing that the special counsel's report "appears to be guided by a predetermined political result," Volkov even suggests that the report's conclusion that no charges of criminal contempt of court should be brought was a way to protect a flawed process by insulating the findings from being tested in court.
Solomon Wisenberg, on the other hand, focuses on the practical lessons to be gained from the special counsel's report.
Four of Wisenberg's nine points in his post dated March 27 are:
Compost flows downhill....
If I am an experienced prosecutor and supervisor and agree to take over and lead the prosecution team a few days prior to the Indictment, I need to lead that team and take responsibility for my actions and the team's actions....
If I am prosecuting a white collar case involving hundreds of FBI 302s [forms the FBI uses to summarize witness interviews] and I don't hand them over to the defense before trial AND I am going up against a United States Senator who is represented by a highly skilled law firm known for its tenacious tactics, I am a fool. I deserve what I get. But the people who work for me don't necessarily deserve what they get....
If four prosecutors and one case agent interview the key prosecution witness three months before Indictment, and the interview goes poorly, AND no 302 is generated, people aren't going to think well of them. This is especially true if the FBI Special Agent later admits that no 302 was written because, "the debriefing...did not go well," and the prosecutors completely forget about the interview and the Brady information gleaned during it.
An organization called Alaskans for Justice is holding a rally today to call for the passage of legislation promoting greater discovery in federal criminal cases. The group is also demanding the firing of two prosecutors and an FBI agent whose conduct was attacked in a special counsel's report on prosecutorial failings in the bungled Ted Stevens prosecution.
Greater understanding of matters referenced at the rally will come from reading two blog posts by experienced lawyers who have worked as federal prosecutors and white collar criminal defense attorneys.
The first is by Michael Volkov, who says "There is no question that mistakes were made in the Stevens case, but the Schuelke-Shields report ignores too many facts, inconsistent evidence and the surrounding managerial dysfunctions to carry much weight." Volkov contends that "In many respects, the Schuelke-Shields report is guilty of the same conduct it complains about in the Stevens case."
Observing that the special counsel's report "appears to be guided by a predetermined political result," Volkov even suggests that the report's conclusion that no charges of criminal contempt of court should be brought was a way to protect a flawed process by insulating the findings from being tested in court.
Solomon Wisenberg, on the other hand, focuses on the practical lessons to be gained from the special counsel's report.
Four of Wisenberg's nine points in his post dated March 27 are:
Compost flows downhill....
If I am an experienced prosecutor and supervisor and agree to take over and lead the prosecution team a few days prior to the Indictment, I need to lead that team and take responsibility for my actions and the team's actions....
If I am prosecuting a white collar case involving hundreds of FBI 302s [forms the FBI uses to summarize witness interviews] and I don't hand them over to the defense before trial AND I am going up against a United States Senator who is represented by a highly skilled law firm known for its tenacious tactics, I am a fool. I deserve what I get. But the people who work for me don't necessarily deserve what they get....
If four prosecutors and one case agent interview the key prosecution witness three months before Indictment, and the interview goes poorly, AND no 302 is generated, people aren't going to think well of them. This is especially true if the FBI Special Agent later admits that no 302 was written because, "the debriefing...did not go well," and the prosecutors completely forget about the interview and the Brady information gleaned during it.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Don't Have a Federal Criminal Discovery System that Requires Prosecutors to Make Discretionary Decisions Against Their Instincts, Veteran Former Federal Prosecutor Says
Washington, D.C.--
Long-time federal prosecutor turned white collar defense attorney Peter Zeidenberg urges the federal government to adopt a practice of open-file discovery in criminal cases. You should read the whole thing, but it's hard to beat this conclusion:
Experience and logic suggest that prosecutors have great difficulty shifting from their natural role as advocate to the impartial role required to determine what evidence will be helpful to the defense. Only by taking the discretion out of prosecutor’s hands, and mandating full and open discovery in all but the rarest cases, can there be confidence that what occurred in Stevens will not reoccur down the road.
Long-time federal prosecutor turned white collar defense attorney Peter Zeidenberg urges the federal government to adopt a practice of open-file discovery in criminal cases. You should read the whole thing, but it's hard to beat this conclusion:
Experience and logic suggest that prosecutors have great difficulty shifting from their natural role as advocate to the impartial role required to determine what evidence will be helpful to the defense. Only by taking the discretion out of prosecutor’s hands, and mandating full and open discovery in all but the rarest cases, can there be confidence that what occurred in Stevens will not reoccur down the road.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
