Contact
Subscribe


Who Says The Justice Department Lacks A Sense Of Humor?

Apr 1, 2009
By .
Law, Politics & Current Events

Eric Holder, the attorney general of the United States, assisted by prosecutors William Welch, Brenda Morris, Kevin Driscoll and Patty Stemler, has dropped the best April Fool's prank ever:

The Justice Department moved on Wednesday morning to drop all charges against former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who narrowly lost his seat last year shortly after being convicted on seven felony counts of ethics violations.

In a stunning development, Justice Department lawyers told a federal court that they had discovered a new instance of prosecutorial misconduct in the case and asked that the convictions be voided. There would be no new trial in the case.

While Stevens' trial, which concluded last fall, was already characterized by more fun, jokes, and hijinks than a barrel of monkeys, with prosecutors concealing allegedly improper contacts with witnesses, and holding back exculpatory documents, this is the best prank yet!

And while I'm sure that this time Ted Stevens is laughing, he's hardly the only fool.  Now the joke is on the United States courts, the Senate, the people of Alaska, and most especially the American taxpayer.

LOL!

Update:  Crime and Federalism, which has covered this as well as any blog, fails to appreciate the humor.  Even so, the Crime and Federalism round-up of posts on the Stevens case is indispensable.

Update 2: The New York Times article I've linked above states that Justice Department attorney Kevin Driscoll was cited with contempt by the court. This is false or at best highly misleading, and the Times should apologize to Mr. Driscoll. The court initially cited Mr. Driscoll, but withdrew the citation on determining that Mr. Driscoll's role in the case was minimal. I apologize for relying on the Times.

Last 5 posts by Patrick

6 Comments
Tags

6 Comments

  1. Ken  •  Apr 1, 2009 @8:01 am

    Hard as it is to swallow, it's probably the best move, politically and legally, for the government.

    Point one: Stevens is 85 and out of the Senate. He won't be bringing any more pork home.

    Point two: That judge was very likely going to dismiss the case himself based on prosecutorial misconduct. It's entirely arguable that he should. Such a dismissal would be considerably worse, politically and for the reputation of DoJ, than a voluntary dismissal. Even if he didn't dismiss it, there's an excellent chance of a really awful published opinion on appeal. Holder seizes the initiative and preempts such problems.

    Point three: Holder gets to look deadly serious about rules and misconduct and such, to the benefit of the reputation of DoJ, while actually not laying out the misconduct in the way that a district court or appellate court order would.

  2. Patrick  •  Apr 1, 2009 @8:12 am

    Oh I don't have a problem with Holder on this. The problem is with William Welch, Kevin Driscoll and Patty Stemler, who epitomize the "win at all costs" mentality.

    Did they think they could get away with blatant misconduct in the trial of a man so prominent? That sort of thing is done to accused drug dealers all the time, but here they were being watched.

  3. Ken  •  Apr 1, 2009 @8:22 am

    Honestly, I haven't examined it closely enough to know whether that is a fair characterization or not. I am not inclined to assume that it is, because of the truism that one should not attribute to malice what can be explained by laziness and stupidity. Complying with the government's various obligations in a big paper case is complex and time-consuming and requires a lot of focus. Making correct statements to the court about what the government has or has not done or turned over in a complex paper case is likewise challenging. Failure to comply is not excusable, and hurts the defendant whether or not it is intentional, but that doesn't mean it is always intentional.

  4. Patrick  •  Apr 1, 2009 @8:25 am

    I don't expect you to examine it closely (Stevens isn't paying for it), but Mike at Crime & Federalism has done it for us. See the Turley link within, as well.

  5. Gideon  •  Apr 1, 2009 @8:59 am

    Wait, so it isn't an April Fool's Day joke? Fooled me!

  6. Grandy  •  Apr 1, 2009 @9:07 am

    Couldn't win at all costs produce (unintended) malicious results but still be because of stupidity?