Legal Ethics
New DOJ Evidence Debacle: AG Says Gov’t Disclosure Dubious in 2 More Alaska Cases
Posted Jun 5, 2009 6:07 PM CST
By Martha Neil
In the latest prosecutorial embarrassment for the U.S. Department of Justice, the DOJ has admitted it may have fouled up concerning the required pre-trial provision of exculpatory evidence in the cases of two Alaska lawmakers.
In a filing yesterday in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the DOJ asks that former Republican state representatives Peter Kott and Victor Kohring be released from prison and that their cases be remanded to U.S. District Court for further action, reports Bloomberg.
The filing says material has been found “that, at this stage, appears to be information that should have been, but was not, disclosed” prior to the trial of Kott and Kohring, the news agency recounts. It doesn't disclose what specific material wasn't provided.
According to court records, four of the same federal prosecutors involved in the 2007 bribery and corruption convictions of the two lawmakers were also assigned to the botched prosecution of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Bloomberg reports. The DOJ declined to comment on their employment status. Two of the four worked for the U.S. attorney's office in Anchorage; the other two worked for the DOJ's public integrity section.
“After a careful review of these cases, I have determined that it appears that the department did not provide information that should have been disclosed to the defense,” says U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in a press release.
"Department of Justice prosecutors work hard every day and perform a great service for the American people," Holder continues. "But the Department’s mission is to do justice, not just win cases, and when we make mistakes, it is our duty to admit and correct those mistakes. We are committed to doing that."“The department’s mission is to do justice, not just win cases, and when we make mistakes, it is our duty to admit and correct those mistakes.”
John Henry Browne, who represents Kohring, tells Bloomberg that he wrote Holder a month ago bringing to the AG's attention two documents that he didn't receive from prosecutors that would have been helpful to the defense. In response, the DOJ contacted Browne yesterday, saying that they had uncovered additional exculpatory material that wasn't provided, the news agency recounts.
Additional and related coverage:
Associated Press: "Justice Department admits new mistakes"
Wall Street Journal (sub. req.): "Justice Calls for Release of Alaska Ex-Lawmakers"
ABAJournal.com: "Special Prosecutor to Investigate Government Lawyers in Sen. Stevens Case"
ABAJournal.com: "Federal Judge Sanctions US $600K for Secretly Taping Defense Lawyer"
ABAJournal.com: "Jury Acquits W.R. Grace and Former Execs in Landmark Criminal Asbestos Case"

Comments
B. McLeod
Jun 6, 2009 3:59 PM CST
Amazing how the right-thinking people hired by the Bush Justice Department didn’t manage to conduct ethical prosecutions. More good work by the Public Integrity Section.
Flag this comment
Chris
Jun 6, 2009 7:11 PM CST
Justice Department lawyers are caught breaking the law to put Republican politicians in jail. It’s entirely natural to assume that it must be some sort of Bush plot! It’s a vast right-wing conspiracy, I tell you!
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Jun 7, 2009 4:01 PM CST
Perhaps indicative of the deep divide among Republicans and Republicans. But, then there follow some ethical Democrats, who have insisted on exposing and cleaning up the Republican-on-Republican misconduct. It is a strange land we live in.
Flag this comment
iamjoecollector
Jun 7, 2009 9:37 PM CST
As a former prosecutor, and as an officer of the court, this simply floors me. I would have never done such a thing. Even now, I error on the side of caution and turn over everything.
If I have something to hide, should I be going forward with the case?
Flag this comment
swapicide
Jun 8, 2009 8:52 AM CST
Mr. McLeod, or if I may be informal, B. are these AGs Bush hires? Please provide whatever you have on the subject. It is interesting, but may not be relevant. I do recall a similar incident involving, I think the shoe bomber case - or it may have been Padilla. It seemed there that the issue was a bureaucratic, non-litigator with a big head, trying to prove herself/ himself by winning at all costs. It is likely that something similar is more likely the cause of this crap-up than G. Bush, et al. Or perhaps W was right about about the purge?
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.