The Stevens Case

I can understand why Clarice felt the need to preface this with the Libby case. Read it all here. But the Stevens issue is more timely. h/t PW for more.

I am dismayed to learn that so many people are under the impression that the Stevens case was dropped because of some mere technicality, and not because the case against him was riddled with perjured testimony and evidence of his innocence was unlawfully hidden by the prosecution team. I ask if you hear anyone say anything so foolish that you set them straight.

So, it was with great interest that I read that the Department of Justice attorney, Brenda Morris, already held in contempt by Judge Sullivan in the matter involving the wrongful prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens, and now under investigation by both the Department of Justice and the special prosecutor chosen by the Judge, was also a supervisor in the Libby case.

We also have learned this is not the first time her professional ethics have hurt innocent defendants. In that case the department was forced to compensate the defendants over $1.3 million and still it is apparent that she was allowed to continue on in this powerful post with so little supervision.

Comments

[Christopher Fotos]

Paging Tom Maguire

[edh]

While I thought the prosecution of Libby was weak, and poorly defended, really how much influence could Morris have over the decision to prosecute Libby?

At that high a level, and given that the act and evidence against Libby was pretty much encapsulated in sworn testimony, wasn't the prosecution pretty much all Fitzgerald's doing?

[clarice]

It's not so much the question to prosecute which wasn't hers even in the Stevens case, as the handling of witnesses and evidence. The missing Eckenrode notes are the most pressing example of suspicious evidence handling.

[bloodstar]

First problem with the US criminal system in relation to Prosecutors? The general immunity given to prosecutors even when they encourage witnesses to lie, or knowingly lie about exculpatory evidence and withhold it from the defense.

The second problem is that even when the prosecutors are caught, repercussions are so rare and so trivial typically, with at best, the defense getting a retrial that there's no disincentive for the prosecutors.

Third, having elected positions encourages people to pad their stats, "I have a 95% conviction rate" or try to out tough the next guy, "Oh yeah? I'll send everyone who commits a crime to jail for life!" Coupled with no repercussions for lying or cheating or withholding evidence, who wouldn't want to do that? With the mindset that "They're guilty anyway, so we gotta put em behind bars" pervading the population, there is even more incentive to convict by any means necessary.

I'm glad Stevens was acquitted, I personally think he's corrupt and that there was something fishy going on, but that doesn't mean the prosecution can lie, withhold evidence and otherwise game the system just to get a conviction.

I just hope more judges take the time to realize that the system is broken and that there are a number of prosecutors who are willing to break the trust that makes the system work just to gain that extra conviction.

read volokh and scotusblog if you want to see more examples (reason also includes some good ones as well)

[Cecil Turner]

The missing Eckenrode notes are the most glaring example of an [unbelievable] failure to disclose favorable information, but the general handling of "Brady" material is also remarkably similar. In the Libby case, the handling of the "leaking"/"obstruction" bait-and-switch allowed the Prosecution to claim any evidence showing Libby didn't believe Plame to be covert was immaterial, and hence not covered by Brady (despite the fact that it made the supposed motive nonsensical). The additional resistance over providing Libby's work documents made the memory defense untenable, even before the expert was ruled out.

In the Stevens case, they similarly strained the definition of what was exculpatory, but also used the disclosure statement as a method for establishing the venue in the (90+% Democrat jury pool) DC court. The shuffling of the star witness was also very similar to hiding pertinent CIA witness information under the aegis of classified information. Don't know how much of that is endemic to prosecutors, but the cases had a very similar "flavor" throughout.

BTW, great article Clarice. I thought the comparison between the two cases was particularly apt, and ought really to give rise to a new aphorism: "a zealous prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich . . . and if it happens to be a Republican sandwich, a DC jury will convict it."

[Just Asking]

Republican journalists, had they actively, publicly questioned Tim Russert's role in the Libby case, probably could have stopped that prosecution dead in its tracks. But there is no injustice Republican journalists won't condone, so long as it is committed against a Republican.

[Peach]

Didn't Fitzgerald also not disclose some particulars about Ari Fleischer's immunity arrangement? And also, did he NOT seek testimony by the likes of Dickerson was it? And David Gregory which would have been exculpatory? And wasn't he outrageously wrong in saying Libby was the first known official to speak with reporters about ding bat Plame when it was Fitzgerald's dereliction of duty to have asked Armitage if he had spoken to anyone else besides Novak? Or ask for his appointment book aka Law 101? Just name a few items Morris behaved in typical unethical/criminal matter and derelict in her supervision duties.

Any case she was involved with should be carefully reviewed if the DOJ wants to restore faith and credibility.

[Cecil Turner]

There was an argument concerning what sort of proffer was made by Fleischer prior to being granted immunity, but as far as I can recall it never amounted to much. Libby's team pointed out the government's somewhat inconsistent statements on the subject, but it wasn't a major point.
http://noeasyanswer.blogspot.com/2007/01/libby-memorandum-to-discover-fleishers.html

Eckenrode's interview of Libby, however, was the ostensible reason for pursuing him even after they knew Armitage was the original source of the leak. It's the main event up to the GJ testimony (which is a masterpiece of rambling Q&A, months on, and dubious at best), and it's simply inconceivable that they either never recorded it, or, having based their subsequent case on it, then lost the record.

[Just Asking]

It's inconceivable that the press let MSNBC by with being witness and reporter to this matter, but they did, all of them...FOX, the NRO and The Standard included. They were happy to throw Libby under the bus, if that gave them a chance to appear on MTP.