Is it me or is this a pretty bare-bones response from the government? It's 1.5 pages and ends this way: "In summary, the Defendant’s motion does not present a sufficient legal or factual basis to support a determination that the Court should exercise its discretion to disqualify itself or otherwise recuse."
The FPD's office slammed the "conclusory response" in its 7-page reply. It ends this way:
In short, the government does not accurately set forth the controlling legal standards governing Mr. Routh’s motion. It does not dispute any of the objective (and unique) facts upon which his motion is based. And its conclusory response, consisting of three inapt citations, otherwise fails to explain why the undisputed facts of this case might reasonably create an appearance of partiality in the mind of the public.
3. Finally, there is one new, additional matter that Mr. Routh must raise.
After Mr. Routh filed his motion, the government advised defense counsel for the first time that one member of the prosecution’s team—Christopher Browne of the Justice Department’s National Security Section in Miami—attended high school with Your Honor, and Your Honor attended Mr. Browne’s wedding nine years ago. It is unclear why the government believed that this information was important enough to share with defense counsel but not important enough to include in its response. And it is unclear why, despite hundreds of able prosecutors in this District and around the country, the government elected to staff its team in this high-profile case with a prosecutor who enjoys a longstanding, personal relationship with the presiding judge. In the mind of the public, this fact could further add to the appearance of partiality.
The original post, discussing the PD's motion to recuse, is here.
Browne joined the case AFTER Cannon got the case. To make room for him, three other prosecutors were removed from the case. And Browne didn't say a word until after the bare bones response?
ReplyDeleteHow is this not improper?
What more did they have to say? I think the FPD's office over briefed. And the reply was too long too. The reply could have been something like, "respectfully, the government's actions since the defense filed its motion has exacerbated the appearance of impartiality in this case. While Mr. Browne (a high school friend and guest at your honor's wedding) is no doubt an attorney of integrity, his addition to the prosecution team adds another straw to the camels back. Given the high-profile nature of this case, voluntary recusal and reassignment is the most prudent course of action." Done. The whole thing, motion, response, and reply, including three case styles and three signature pages, should have been briefed in 7 pages.
ReplyDeleteA sentence would have been enough for it to be denied, even if they wrote ‘government does not oppose’. Don’t worry, even if it gets reversed, FL will be there to make sure they get a chance to fuck up and unfuckable case too.
ReplyDeleteIf there ever was a case for the government that could not be fucked up unless they try really, really hard, this would be it.
ReplyDeleteThe bit about the prosecutor being friendly with the judge (or at least having the wedding/high school connection) reminded me of the recent Ninth Circuit decision of In re Creech, 9th Cir. No. 24-4455 (Oct. 16, 2024). The court granted mandamus to recuse a judge because the defendant was prosecuted by someone the judge was good friends with -- a former co-clerk who spoke at the judge's investiture and whom the judge spoke about in very friendly terms. One important factor was that part of the defendant's claims included prosecutorial misconduct, so the judge would, at some level, be required to assess her friend's professionalism. At least the claims in this Florida case don't involve a judge-prosecutor relationship as close as the one causing all the problems (including a judicial resignation) in Alaska!
ReplyDeleteShe’s not giving up her opportunity to curry favor with the Orange Clown.
ReplyDelete