Tag Archives: Prosecutorial Misconduct

Joe Hirko and Rex Shelby’s Motion to Dismiss For Prosecutorial Misconduct

Shelby-Hirko_Prosecutorial_Misconduct_Motion

Amen, brothers.

The government’s reply:
Opposing Motion to Dismiss for Prosecutorial Conduct

Updated to add that Hirko and Shelby’s motion is a particularly good piece of legal writing. The motion includes mentions of the Skilling case as well as the Nigerian Barge defendants, showing a pattern, as Ed Tomko writes, of the ETF only partially meeting its Brady obligations (ie, turning over exculpatory material.) It is well worth the time it takes to read it.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Enron Broadband Services

Another Prosecutorial Overreach

Check this out.

This is yet another action by the federal government that should frighten people. Just as the federal government used the financial “crisis” to expand the reach of the government, now the Feds are seizing on the opportunity of a defendant who everyone hates to expand its reach. I now find myself in the horrible position of having to root for a hated defendant in order to ensure that future innocent defendants are not snagged under the ridiculous precedent the DOJ is hoping to foist on us.

This is yet another example of the federal government trying to warp a law to take authority away from the states and the private individual. If I were Loughner’s attorney, I would immediately file a motion for dismissal of all counts on constitutional grounds — this is one that needs to go to the SCOTUS.

What is maddening is that the Feds have Loughner on three counts of murder. By putting their thirst for federal power above their responsibility to seek justice, the Feds are doing a horrible disservice, not just to Loughner’s victims, but to the rights of all Americans.

2 Comments

Filed under Prosecutorial Misconduct

USA Today Tackles Prosecutorial Abuse

WSJ has an interesting article about USA Today’s series on prosecutorial misconduct.

The [sic] USA Today identified 200 cases since 1997 in which prosecutors supposedly violated laws or ethics rules; in at least 48 of the cases, defendants were convicted of crimes, but courts gave them shorter sentences than they would have otherwise received due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Some of the defendants who got shorter sentences, according to USA Today, returned to crime almost as soon as they went free.

In many instances prosecutors themselves agree to sweetheart plea deals with defendants after findings of misconduct, according to USA Today. In D.C. alone, for example, the Department of Justice agreed to shorter prison sentences for at least 8 convicted murderers after judges and defense attorneys discovered that prosecutors had concealed potentially exculpatory evidence.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. told the USA Today that 7 of the 8 murderers were prosecuted “by a single lawyer who left the office more than 15 years ago, hardly a systemic problem.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman said the USA Today’s investigation “misleads readers by providing a statistically inaccurate representation of the hard work done by federal prosecutors.”

Ah, the old “it’s rare so it is not a problem” excuse. I believe Blackstone had a good answer for that: it is better for ten guilty men to go to free than to force one innocent man to submit to punishment by the state. Every single victim of prosecutorial abuse matters. It is worse than child abuse, worse even than homicide, worse than terrorism for the simple reason that there is no recourse for the victim when he is victimized. There is no greater authority he can appeal to. And in most cases, as the USA Today article points out, and I’ve pointed out many times, cases of prosecutorial misconduct are rarely punished, regardless of how egregious the DOJ’s actions.

In the Enron case, the lawyers were completely lawless. Laws were ignored or applied incorrectly; see the NatWest Three and my articles about extradition, or Jeff Skilling’s prosecution under “Honest Services and see also Kevin Howard for a hair-raising experience with honest services, and the Nigerian Barge defendants and Ken Rice and the various threats they used on him, and Jeff McMahon and Joe Hirko and Rex Shelby and Rick Causey and please, look at what they did to Lea Fastow. They used her to get her husband though her crime would never have been prosecuted if she wasn’t “Lea Fastow” — according to John Kroger, a federal prosecutor! They took a mother away from her two terrified young children and put her in prison for a year for a crime they ordinarily wouldn’t even prosecute.

Here are twenty-four explicit, specific examples of prosecutorial misconduct.

So don’t tell me it only happens once in a great while. It happens all the time if you’re an Enron defendant.

1 Comment

Filed under Enron Task Force

WSJ & USA Today Highlight Prosecutorial Abuse

For the past six months, I’ve watched as several DOJ officials have come forward to complain that the DOJ has been whitewashing prosecutions, refusing to prosecute crimes against white victims: notably, the Black Panthers case in which two Black Panthers stood outside a polling place in Pennsylvania, uttering epithets, including the line that he wanted to kill “cracker” babies. This took place during the Obama/McCain election.

Eric Holder’s ascendancy to the role of Attorney General has wiped the Black Panthers case off the map. But two whistleblowers have come forward to complain that the DOJ is refusing to prosecute crimes in which a white person is the victim.

I’ve watched all this, hopeful but not too hopeful, that something good could come out of it. I’ve attempted to defend the Enron defendants, but it is difficult to get people to pay attention when the victims are a bunch of rich white guys. Whereas Obama’s DOJ is looking the other way because of racial issues, I believe that the Bush and Obama DOJs are prosecuting because of class issues. Either way, it simply isn’t right.

Then today, USA Today did something extraordinary: they ran a 4,000 word article about prosecutorial abuse. WSJ chose to highlight it in its own newspaper. I quote the WSJ:

It’s not every day that a major daily newspaper runs a 4,000-word article.

But the USA Today has seen fit to spill more than that much ink on a topic near and dear to our hearts: prosecutorial misconduct.

The piece begins with this anecdote:

The jurors who helped put Nino Lyons in jail for three years had every reason to think that he was a drug trafficker, and, until July, no reason to doubt that justice had been done. For more than a week in 2001, the jurors listened to one witness after another, almost all of them prison inmates, describe how Lyons had sold them packages of cocaine. One said that Lyons, who ran clothing shops and nightclubs around Orlando, even tried to hire him to kill two drug suppliers.

But the federal prosecutors handling the case did not let the jury hear all the facts.

Instead, the prosecutors covered up evidence that could have discredited many of Lyons’ accusers. They never revealed that a convict who claimed to have purchased hundreds of pounds of cocaine from Lyons struggled even to identify his photograph. And they hid the fact that prosecutors had promised to let others out of prison early in exchange for their cooperation.

The story reveals the results of an investigation undertaken by the paper on prosecutorial misconduct. The investigation found that prosecutors “repeatedly have violated that duty in courtrooms across the nation. The abuses have put innocent people in prison, set guilty people free and cost taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees and sanctions.”

Yes! Thank you! Someone else is saying it now.

Much of the problem, reports the paper, rests with the fact that too often prosecutors put aside judgment and discretion, and “deliberately cut corners to win.” Prosecutors are overworked and, have insufficient oversight and, according to Loyola law school professor Laurie Levenson, are the A+ students who aren’t accustomed to losing.

“Prosecutors think they’re doing the Lord’s work, and that they wear the white hat. When I was a prosecutor, I thought everything I did was right,” said Jack Wolfe, a former federal prosecutor in Texas and now a defense lawyer. “So even if you got out of line, you could tell yourself that you didn’t do it on purpose, or that it was for the greater good.”

Furthermore, there’s often a lack of accountability. Department records show that its internal investigations often take more than a year to complete, and usually find that prosecutors, at worst, made a mistake, even when judges who presided over the trials ruled that there was serious misconduct.

The comments are very insightful too:

The problem is that many of the prosecutors, whether federal or state, are using the job as a stepping stone and rather than furthering the justice process, they are trying to win at all costs. My suggestion would be that since someone’s liberty is at stake, if a prosecutor fails to disclose information, especially exculpatory, automatic disbarrment for 2 years.

Ask Jeff Skilling or James A. Brown about the failure of the DOJ to produce exculpatory evidence. I’m sure they could talk your ears off. It’s done all the time.

Then there was this harrowing story from another commenter:

My miserable experience shows that prosecutors don’t even comply with the minimal requirements. When I lived in Steamboat Springs CO, I was prosecuted by Elizabeth P. Wittemyer. I am totally convinced that she prosecuted me because she thought it would benefit her husband Chris Wittemyer’s real estate business. I was accused of yelling “you are violating my constitutional rights” while I was standing on the street in front of my home and directing it to the wife of the city council president who by her own account was behind her garage going into her house or alternately at her husband and two construction workers standing on the second floor of a building (that violated the zoning) that they were then building. That was not a crime. I was prosecuted without a warrant or an arrest and the so called criminal summons and arrest was signed only by Jane Bennett my former neighbor and the wife of the city council president. She signed in the line marked police officer. There was never any written statement of probable cause and Wittemyer also skipped an arraignment although that was required. She never talked to me, I never met her. Then after I pled not guilty she dismissed the charges but she skipped the required oral hearing and refused to have one even when my lawyer filed a motion requesting one. She made a public statement that there was probable cause and that Jane Bennett was my victim but that a trial was too expensive. She altered the preprinted dismissal form. Then she bought insurance from Underwriters at Lloyds London, which isn’t even listed on the State of Colorado Division of Insurance form as being authorized to sell insurance in Colorado. They sell it over the Internet to hard to place firms. Furthermore she knew that a restraining order was issued on me for the stated reason that she was criminally prosecuting me but was maintained after the criminal charge was dismissed, again contrary to Colorado statute. With her knowledge, my neighbor followed me around town trying to get me arrested for normal errands and even for being in my own yard. Furthermore I found out later that Kevin Bennett had a felony record for conspiracy to sell hash meaning he had a NCIC record which I think she was privy too. And she knew that the reason I was complaining is that my neighbors both extorted me and built in violation of the zoning. She knew that the planning services director said in court while under oath “my professional societies, American Planning Association and American Institute of Certified Planners” but that when I contacted the AICP they said she was not a member (which requires testing, references, and an ethics oath). She still lives in Steamboat and she knows that the extra buildings, which had heating and plumbing, aren’t on the Routt County property tax rolls for Kevin and Jane Bennett.

Then, after a conference w Lloyds about case assignment, my case against Wittemyer et al. in federal court, D of Colorado 02-1950, was transferred directly for former judge Naughty Nottingham. I am convinced that wasn’t a random assignment. Nottingham was already having weekly prostitution appointments and hanging out at the Diamond Cabaret lap dance club. He dismissed my section 1983 complaint and he didn’t even write an opinion. Then her lawyer filed in the 10th Circuit his notice of appearance and claimed that there were no additional parties without acknowledging the interest of Lloyds which was required. Also, Wittemyer went along with an attorney fee shifting order that was issued without any finding of fraud on my part — there were no rule 11 c 6 orders, her lawyer didn’t even file a rule 11 motion. This was not $500 or $5,000, it was $104 K and designed to bankrupt my family and ruin our credit. The amount was supposed to be because I had alleged that my neighbor might be dealing drugs and the bills from their attorney show him discussing Bennett’s NCIC record in 2003. Last fall he publicly admitted his felony record. The magistrate recommended dismissal of the claims against Wittemyer based on the idea that prosecutors have absolute immunity even for press conferences after a criminal charge is dismissed. That is specifically contrary to the Supreme Court decision in BUCKLEY v. FITZSIMMONS et al. which I had found and quoted.

Then Wittemyer and her lawyer got Nottingham to put me in jail for 5 months without any criminal information, any arraignment, any bail hearing, any trial or any sentence. One of the volunteer prosecutors, an insurance defense lawyer, said that I was not entitled to a lawyer and not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Nottingham said that I would only be allowed to make a five minute presentation and vowed that he would not listen.

As part of that I was also brought into the federal court in Madison WI. The hearing was not even on the court calendar. The person who officiated wasn’t on the court calendar at all the entire year and was listed on the court website as a clerk. She created a so called criminal docket and listed opening pending and terminated charges as “none”. The assistant U.S. Attorney showed up and said “the government isn’t a part of this”. There was a public defender and he said that I wasn’t accused of a crime not even contempt and if I was I was entitled to a bail hearing. I was not told any of my rights. I wasn’t arraigned, I wasn’t told my right to plead not guilty, I wasn’t told my right to a hearing about where I would be tried, I wasn’t told my right to a speedy trial, there wasn’t a bail hearing and no one even suggested I might be dangerous. I am a middle aged woman with no criminal record who has never owned a gun. The prosecutor didn’t complain when I was ordered held without bail as a high security prisoner for three weeks and then taken 1200 miles in chains. The officiator asked him “Anything further from the Government?” and he said “No, your Honor”.

I don’t even know what to say to that.

These USDOJ prosecutors are not A+ students, they are the lowest of the low whose attitude is no different than that of Mafia dons like John Gotti. But with lames like Ashcroft and Holder in charge of the USDOJ, there is no accountability or oversight at the USDOJ. So the federal prosecutors can go about arresting the usual suspects (minority drug addicts and the like that fill to the brim federal prisons) and the politically motivated prosecutions like those against Gus Boulis, Conrad Black and Elliot Spitzer.

And John Kroger, Sean Berkowitz, Andrew Weissman, Kathy Rummeler, Doug Wilson, John Houston, etc. etc.

It sounds like the culture of the DOJ is to put down cases, whether or not justice is served by a conviction. If the police are going to cut corners in their investigations with the support of prosecutors who will put forth charges without regard for exculpatory evidence, then the entire system is biased toward feeding the career needs of it’s practitioners rather than the people it serves. The real embarrassment are the bar associations which seem to be even less effective than medical boards at excluding the dangerous and unethical members of the profession. Who speaks for the people? DOJ should be doubly embarrassed that it was the USA Today, an institution unknown for its reporting prowess, that broke this story.

Interesting point. It’s USA Today (the “US Magazine” of the newspaper world) who actually put forth some journalistic muscle and wrote the truth. It’s odd that USA Today has this story and the National Enquirer had several stories that turned out to be true (i.e., John Edwards’ affair.) It still seems like the reputable journals don’t dare defend the people “everyone” knows are guilty, such as Enron defendants.

It’s a shame. But I hope that by shedding light on the problem of prosecutorial abuse, maybe we can advance ourselves into a more civil, more honest society.

But as long as the Holder DOJ is in charge, I wouldn’t count on it.

1 Comment

Filed under Enron

99.6%

These are the grim statistics: if you are indicted, you have a 99% chance of seeing prison.
96% of all criminal cases are settled with plea deals.
1% of those that go to trial end in an acquittal.

My question is: is anyone right 99% of the time? (The actual statistic is 99.6%) Are prosecutors really right that often? If so, why is there so much inconsistent, illogical, and flat-out wrongness everywhere else in government?

3 Comments

Filed under Prosecutorial Misconduct, Uncategorized

Ex-Merrill Banker Asks U.S. to Probe Enron Prosecutor (Part Two)

A commenter on a previous post about former Merrill Lynch executive James A. Brown’s request of the U.S. Senate, Justice Department and state bar authorities to investigate his claims of misconduct by a federal prosecutor pointed out a Bloomberg article with much more detail. I am so glad this was brought to my attention because the Bloomberg article by Laurel Brubaker Calkins is much more detailed and to my mind, much more honest than Kristen Hays’ Chronicle article that I originally quoted. Kristen Hays of the Houston Chronicle has a storied past regarding Enron articles. In short, she doesn’t seem to believe anything that doesn’t come out of the mouths of prosecutors. I recall exactly one Enron article that was neutral to slightly in favor of Jeff Skilling and that was on the eve of his appeal, April 2, 2008. It was so remarkably neutral that I even titled my post about it Chronicle Publishes Fair Article About Jeff Skilling. It was that unusual.

Laurel’s coverage, in contrast, has struck me as ethical and balanced, with no particular agenda. This Bloomberg article is generally true to form (there was one line that made me roll my eyes but whatareyagonnado?) She’s not pro-Enron, but she does give the facts and leaves the editorializing out, which is really all I can ask of a reporter.

In any case, do yourself a favor and read the article for fuller coverage of Brown’s complaint. The juiciest part, to my mind, was Brown’s attorney saying more complaints are coming. I am crossing my fingers: Andrew Weissman, please let Andrew Weissman in the mix. And Berkowitz. Oh GOD IN HEAVEN how I would love to see Sean Berkowitz do a perp walk. If not for Jeff Skilling and Dr. Lay, then for James A. Brown, who is every bit as deserving.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Enron

Merrill Execs Seek Formal Inquiry

Kristen Hayes at Houston Chronicle reports that a lawyer for one of three former Merrill Lynch & Co. executives convicted of participating with Enron in a sham barge sale has asked for congressional, Justice Department and bar association investigations into alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Sidney Powell, who represents James Brown, submitted the requests for investigations, alleging prosecutor Matthew Friedrich withheld evidence that could have exonerated the defendants in their 2004 trial.

Powell reiterated allegations made in a March filing to U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein of Houston that sought to prevent the government from retrying Brown on charges already overturned and to erase two convictions that were upheld.

The government responded in a subsequent filing, “We vigorously oppose the defendant’s every accusation of prosecutorial misconduct.”

Friedrich, who also helped prosecute Arthur Andersen in 2002 during his tenure with the Enron Task Force, was appointed last month as acting assistant attorney general at the Justice Department.

Powell said Monday that she plans to file similar requests to investigate conduct of the other two prosecutors in the case.

Brown and two other defendants, Daniel Bayly and Robert Furst, were accused in a case centered on Enron’s sale of power plants off Nigeria to Merrill in late 1999. Prosecutors said the sale was a disguised loan and that Enron executives promised to resell or buy back the barges within six months. The defendants countered that the sale was legitimate.

All convictions against Bayly and Furst and most against Brown were overturned in 2006. They are awaiting retrials.

1 Comment

Filed under Enron

The Case Of The Mysterious Vanishing Document

An essay Enron Task Force prosecutor John Hueston wrote in Spring 2007 for the American Criminal Law Review, titled Behind The Scenes at the Enron Trial: Creating The Decisive Moments has gone missing.  Until about a week ago, it was on his company website, right beside a photo of him and a list of his accomplishments.  Now? 

We here at the Cara Ellison blog, smartypants that we are, can hazard a guess about what’s going on.  We guess, first, that Hueston is a very popular man with Jeff Skilling and his defense team.   It seems Hueston’s now-vanished essay was quoted liberally in the former CEO’s appeal brief, including comments that the prosecution had no proof that Skilling and Ken Lay were actually guilty so they’d have to work extra hard to make the jury convict. And that he used propaganda-piece The Smartest Guys In The Room as a roadmap to conviction. Things like that. (If you’re only a casual observer of the Enron fiasco, you may not know that Sean Berkowitz, the varsity captain of the Task Force, was dating Bethany McLean, the author of Smartest Guys during the trial.)

We can also guess that neither his private practice nor the DOJ is too happy with him at the moment for bringing attention to the DOJ’s mob tactics.  

Our hypothesis is Hueston got spooked when he read his own words in Skilling’s defense brief and yanked that baby down quick before any further damage was done.

But luckily, all is not lost. I have a copy.  Please feel free to download John Hueston’s essay here. Print and pass them out to your friends. Give them away for St. Patrick’s Day gifts. Use it for birdcage liner – after you read every word of it. It is an astonishing piece of legal crap work that deserves serious scrutiny.

4 Comments

Filed under Enron

Big Nothing: Prosecutorial Misconduct Continued

Volokh Conspiracy has some lively comments on the Enron case and specifically about prosecutorial miscoduct. I left a comment that I thought I would paste here because I do think its a subject worth talking about exhaustively. This is what I said:

There was nothing to bind Skilling to a giant conspiracy, and so the prosecution used literally “the nothing” against him. How is a defendant supposed to defend against Nothing? Prosecutors berated JKS for not keeping notes, then said he didn’t keep notes because he was getting rid of evidence. They accused him of avoiding email as not to leave an electronic trail of his supposed nefarious activity. What is a defendant supposed to say to that? You can’t prove a negative. I found that to be one of the most devious aspects of the case – the way the prosecutors used his innocence to appear like guilt.

And since when is “he didn’t” permissable as evidence? Unless Berkowitz et al know exactly what criminals do in every circumstance, it seems ridiculous to say he wasn’t acting like a criminal, therefore he’s also a CONSPIRING criminal.

If you’ll excuse the expression: Seriously? WTF?

Though it was too late at this point to matter, Sherri Sera, Skilling’s longtime assistant, said during sentencing that in over twenty years of working for the man she’d never seen ANYTHING that would indicate Skilling was involved in criminal enterprise. That’s always stuck with me. He trusted this woman with his entire life. All his communication flowed through her. Yet she knew nothing. Saw nothing. Because NOTHING was there.

And that’s what convicted him: nothing.

My morning googlings have led me to no other cases in which “he didn’t” or “he wasn’t” or basically a lack of evidence is what convicted a man of a crime. It seems like with the presumption of innocence, the lack of evidence would have been a default verdict of Not Guilty for Skilling.

Alas.

Skilling’s trial is about “the big nothing”, all the things he didn’t do, didn’t say, didn’t write down, didn’t know. We deserve better from a justice system. Skilling deserves better.

4 Comments

Filed under Enron

The Falling of the Enron Case House of Cards

White Collar Crime Prof Blog has a post on Jeff Skilling’s prosecutorial misconduct allegations called – I love this title and wish I’d thought of it first – The Falling of the Enron Case House of Cards. It quotes mostly Tom’s authoritative article at Houston Clear Thinkers which also has copies of the supplemental briefs which is causing all the excitement.

But seriously: The Falling Of The Enron Case House of Cards. Hahhahahaha!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Enron