Federal prosecutors under scrutiny for failing to turn over favorable evidence to a defendant told a judge they didn't act in bad faith, even as they disclosed internal emails in which they discussed whether they might try to "bury" a document they were giving to defense lawyers in a stack of other papers.
Prosecutors in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office made the disclosure in a letter to Judge Alison Nathan, who had demanded answers about the prosecution's failings and whether she had the power to impose sanctions against them.
The newly revealed email message described how one of the prosecutors found out that an important document hadn't been turned over to the defense, suggesting: "I'm wondering if we should wait until tomorrow and bury it in some other documents."
Prosecutors now say the document was not, in fact, "buried" because they turned it over less than 24 hours after the email discussion.
Their July 2 letter said the prosecutor who wrote the email was "endlessly chagrined about this chat" and added that "we believe it would go too far to condemn her for a Friday night lapse in thinking regarding a document that was in fact disclosed Saturday afternoon."
Defense lawyers for Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad, who was charged with violating American sanctions laws against Iran, told the court they are "surprised and disappointed."
Attorney Brian Heberlig accused the prosecutors, and an official in the U.S. attorney's office who's tasked with promoting professional responsibility, of trying "to minimize, deflect, and deny, avoiding any acknowledgment or acceptance of responsibility for the government's obvious, repeated failures and its notable lack of candor," in his own letter to the court.
Squabbles over turning over documents, known as discovery, are common in federal criminal cases. But it's rare for a judge to demand that the government identify lawyers and supervisors involved in evidence-sharing lapses.
And it's even more rare for prosecutors to acknowledge such serious faults that they moved to dismiss a case they had already won.
"Any new trial would necessarily require a new team of (assistant U.S. attorneys) who would have to become familiar with every aspect of the investigation — not an easy task, particularly in a case that has already suffered from multiple breakdowns in communication that contributed to significant disclosure failures," prosecutors wrote to explain their rationale for abandoning the conviction.
Aside from the discussion of whether to "bury" a government exhibit, Sadr's lawyers said the prosecution team had engaged in even more "egregious wrongdoing" by misrepresenting a search of emails before the March 2020 trial began.
If a defendant had engaged in this behavior, a prosecutor would have no qualms charging him and seeking an enhancement for obstruction, and a judge would give it in a heartbeat.
3 comments:
No one will argue the judge should refuse to dismiss the case. And no one will speculate that perhaps it is cases of profound, unambiguous misconduct that might have lead an attorney general to want to replace a us atty.
What was even more ridiculous was the lie that the document was not burried because the defense found it. Also, it was in fact sent with a whole another batch of documents when it did go out later the next day. So please - the fact that the AUSA wrote "bury it" to other AUSAs - and that they didn't immediately recognize the unethical behavior, and much more, went along with it, shows how fucked up the mindset is.
Why in the world would anybody ever hold back relevant documents? It just makes no sense.
Wow, just like a local case that has been dragging on for years.
But here the evidence is much worse, beyond Brady.
Post a Comment