From Politico:
A federal judge has ordered all federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York to read a ruling she issued Wednesday that blasts prosecutors for their handling of evidence in a criminal case involving alleged violations of sanctions against Iran.
U.S. District Court Judge Allison Nathan also said she was unsatisfied with the completeness of the government’s account of why prosecutors failed to turn over one key piece of evidence to the defense until the middle of trial, with one government attorney discussing with colleagues a plan to “ bury” the previously undisclosed letter among other documents being emailed to defense lawyers. “No responsible Government lawyer should strategize how to ‘bury’ a document that was not, but should have been, previously disclosed to the defense. A responsible Government lawyer should—at a minimum—forthrightly and truthfully reveal late disclosures to the defense,” Nathan wrote, emphatically disagreeing with the conclusion from U.S. Attorney’s Office leaders that there was nothing to “condemn” in the prosecutors’ actions.
“This Court disagrees and hereby strongly condemns this conduct,” Nathan wrote in her 34-page opinion. Nathan called some of the omissions by prosecutors “shocking.” And she expressed the greatest concern over the explanation prosecutors gave her after the defense for Iranian banker Ali Sadr questioned the late disclosure of the letter prosecutors discussed burying.
“The Court finds that the Government’s representation was misleading, as it implied that it had explicitly informed the defense that [the exhibit] was being disclosed for the first time. Indeed, the Court was misled,” the judge wrote. A jury convicted Sadr in March of five felony counts related to the alleged sanctions violations. However, in June, prosecutors abruptly sought to abandon the case due to the evidence issues that emerged.
You can read the whole opinion here. Good for Judge Nathan. Makes me remember how great Judge Gold was as a judge here in this District. Here's how the opinion starts:
Federal prosecutors have constitutional and statutory duties to disclose many types of
evidence to defendants. This principle of disclosure is central to our criminal-justice system. “A
prosecutor that withholds evidence on demand of an accused which, if made available, would
tend to exculpate him or reduce the penalty helps shape a trial that bears heavily on the
defendant . . . That casts the prosecutor in the role of an architect of a proceeding that does not
comport with standards of justice.” Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87–88 (1963). And federal
prosecutors, like all parties that appear before the Court, have ethical duties of candor. United
States v. Universita, 298 F.2d 365, 367 (2d Cir. 1962) (“The prosecution has a special duty not to
mislead; the government should, of course, never make affirmative statements contrary to what it
knows to be the truth.”). In the near decade the Undersigned has sat on the bench in the
Southern District of New York, the vast majority of Assistant United States Attorneys before the
Court have embraced their disclosure obligations, worked diligently to meet them, and
forthrightly admitted when they did not.
But not all. In this case, federal prosecutors have by their own admission repeatedly
violated their disclosure obligations and, at best, toed the line with respect to their duty of
candor. Over the course of years in this prosecution—before, during, and after trial—the Government has made countless belated disclosures of arguably (and, in one instance,
admittedly) exculpatory evidence. For some pieces of evidence, the Government provides
plausible explanations for its late disclosure. For others, it provides no explanation at all. And
when the Court pressed for more information about one of these failures, the Government made a
misrepresentation to the Court. This serious dereliction requires a serious response.
And the conclusion:
Almost a century ago, the Supreme Court defined the singular role federal prosecutors
play in our system of justice:
The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as
compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a
criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be
done . . . . He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, he should do
so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It
is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a
wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just
one.
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).
The Government in this case has failed to live up to these ideals. The Court has recounted
these breaches of trust, proposed some systemic solutions, urged referral to the Office of
Professional Responsibility for admitted prosecutorial failures apparent in the existing record,
and ordered further fact-finding. The cost of such Government misconduct is high. With each
misstep, the public faith in the criminal-justice system further erodes. With each document
wrongfully withheld, an innocent person faces the chance of wrongful conviction. And with
each unforced Government error, the likelihood grows that a reviewing court will be forced to reverse a conviction or even dismiss an indictment, resulting in wasted resources, delayed
justice, and individuals guilty of crimes potentially going unpunished.
The Court thus issues this Opinion with hopes that in future prosecutions, the United
States Attorney for the Southern District of New York will use only “legitimate means to bring
about a just” result. Id. Nothing less is expected of the revered Office of the United States
Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That Office has a well- and hard-earned
reputation for outstanding lawyers, fierce independence, and the highest of ethical standards.
The daily work of the prosecutors in that Office is critically important to the safety of our
community and the rule of law. Those who stand up in court every day on behalf of that Office
get the benefit of that reputation—but they also have the responsibility to maintain it.
The Court hereby ORDERS that the Acting United States Attorney ensure that all current
AUSAs and SAUSAs read this Opinion. Within one week of the date of this Opinion, the Acting
United States Attorney shall file a declaration affirming that this has occurred.
The Court FURTHER ORDERS that each of the trial team AUSAs, supervising Unit
Chiefs, and the SAUSA submit the declarations described in Section III no later than October 16,
2020. By October 30, 2020, the executive leadership for the USAO may submit a brief as to
why no further proceeding for additional fact-finding or credibility determinations is necessary.
Counsel for Mr. Sadr may, if they wish, submit a responsive filing by November 13, 2020, and
the Government a reply by November 20, 2020.
The only thing that can be said for the SDNY is that they eventually did the right thing and dismissed the case. There have a bunch of cases in this District and others where serious misconduct has been uncovered, but admissions of wrongdoing and dismissals were not forthcoming. Sadly in those cases, the government has dug its heels in. If prosecutors won't dismiss where misconduct is uncovered, then judges should.
