Evidence
Chief Judge Blasts US Attorney Over ‘Egregious Failure’ to Disclose
Posted Jan 27, 2009 11:46 AM CST
By Martha Neil
The chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has issued a 42-page ruling blasting the U.S. attorney there over an alleged pattern of violations by his office of a requirement that exculpatory evidence must be disclosed to the defense in criminal cases.
"The egregious failure of the government to disclose plainly material exculpatory evidence in this case extends a dismal history of intentional and inadvertent violations of the government's duties to disclose in cases assigned to this court," writes Chief Judge Mark Wolf in his Jan. 21 opinion. In it, he orders U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan and an assistant prosecutor, Suzanne Sullivan (who are not related), to file affidavits by Feb. 5 explaining why she and/or the U.S. Attorney's Office should not be sanctioned, reports the Boston Globe.
Although Wolf—who himself was a high-ranking prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's office in the 1980s—complains of a pattern of violations he says he has personally witnessed by various prosecutors, his ruling concerns one case. In it, Suzanne Sullivan allegedly withheld from the defense information that a Boston police officer's pretrial testimony differed from what he had repeatedly told her beforehand.
"Wolf said the truth about the circumstances of the arrest came to light only when he reviewed Sullivan's notes of her interviews of the police officer, Rance Cooley," the newspaper recounts. While that shows her failure to disclose was inadvertent, the judge writes, because she turned over her notes to him, it also shows that she is ignorant of or indifferent to her constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.
In a statement yesterday, Michael Sullivan said that Suzanne Sullivan is a valued member of his staff, but that his office takes the evidence issue seriously and is reviewing the matter.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
JAGIO (Just A Guy in Ohio) re D.C. v. Kellogg-Mart
Jan 29, 2009 3:39 PM CST
Perhaps Ms. Suzanne S ought to pay closer attention to the Rule of Law.
- An Ohio disciplinary case that has been briefed and argued, but not decided, is Disciplinary Counsel v. Kimberly Jo Kellogg-Martin. The Supreme Court of Ohio docket has pdf files of the Board findings and recommendation, plus Respondent (Kellogg), Relator (Disciplinary Counsel) and amicus curiae briefs. The URL for docket is: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/clerk_of_court/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&year=2008&number=1771&myPage=searchbycasenumber.asp
The oral argument video URLs are:
REAL PLAYER http://www.ollserver.state.oh.us/ramgen/court/2008/2008-1771.rm
—- and—-
FLASH VIDEO http://www.ohiochannel.org/multimedia/organizations/media.cfm?file_id=117516&organization_id=4
She was found by the Board to not only fail to disclose, but she compounded her error by choosing to make misstatements of fact in open court. Shame.
Flag this comment
Charlie Rogers
Jan 30, 2009 9:54 AM CST
At every federal court discovery hearing/conference I ever attended, the AUSA said something like, “The Government is well aware of its obligations under Brady, and has complied (or will comply) fully with them. So “inadvertant” nondisclosure is a very rare bird.
Flag this comment
B
Jan 30, 2009 10:18 AM CST
ISanctions?! Can we please put them in jail. Better yet, let’s allow the death penalty for prosecutorial misconduct. Then we might see them clean up their act.
Flag this comment
dennis tuchler
Jan 30, 2009 11:02 AM CST
reprimands don’t count for much; bar sanctions would. Of course, what believer in law and order would want to impose sanctions on a prosecutor?
Flag this comment
John Rekowski
Jan 30, 2009 11:49 AM CST
This is why the Thornburgh memo insulating federal prosecutors from state disciplinary actions is a terrible idea. This should be before the Massachutts’ Disciplnary Commission and ultimately, the State Supreme Court. They may represent the US government but they are still members of the Mass. Bar and should be expected to comport themselves in accord with its dictates and suffer the consequences if they do not.
Flag this comment
rs
Jan 30, 2009 11:50 AM CST
How many times do overzealous prosecutors looking to make a career have to not disclose evidence before something is done? I am conservative by nature, but concerned by this because it could happen to anyone. My opinion - if it comes to light that exculpatory evidence was not produced, the prosecutor should be automatically disbarred for life. We’re not talking about money here, we’re talking about someone’s freedom.
Flag this comment
California Joe
Feb 1, 2009 7:43 AM CST
Why even have the rules? You never do anything when the US Attorney violates them. Why would anyone follow rules that carry no punishment? Can you say ruin lives for press releases, job evaluations, new cars, big homes and spare change.
Maybe now with Obama we will get some honest people in the justice department. Well maybe they already got jobs.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.