Thursday, September 03, 2020

Michael Sherwin is a good example of a U.S. Attorney with principles

 Check out this Washington Post article here. Sherwin is being criticized by both the left and the right.  But he's just trying to do the right thing by not bringing charges where there is no evidence.  Good for Sherwin!

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday accused D.C. police of using insufficient evidence to arrest demonstrators accused of rioting, putting the U.S. attorney’s office and local authorities at odds over how to deal with days of unrest in the District.

The written rebuke came one day after D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) publicly criticized the U.S. attorney’s office for not pursuing most of the criminal ­charges filed by police against nearly 70 people arrested during protests since mid-August. She also sent a letter to prosecutors detailing her complaints.

Noting the mass arrests three weeks ago of 42 people who police said were in a group that spray-painted buildings and set fire to patio umbrellas in Northwest Washington’s Adams Morgan area, acting U.S. attorney Michael Sherwin told Bowser in his own letter that he had no choice but to drop charges against all but one defendant.

“The ‘42 rioters’ were arrested as a collective by MPD and presented to the Office without any articulable facts linking criminal conduct to each individual arrested,” Sherwin wrote in his letter. “Simply put, we cannot charge crimes on the basis of mere presence or guilt by association.”

In his letter, Sherwin says he met with police leaders to request help “to further develop these cases to establish a bare minimum of probable cause. To date, no sufficient evidence has materialized.”


“As I am sure you are aware, without some evidence to establish probable cause of a particular arrestee’s criminal conduct — e.g., a police officer’s observation or video footage of the alleged crime — we cannot bring federal ­charges,” Sherwin wrote. “Surely, by your comments, you are not suggesting that this Office skirt constitutional protections and due process.”



Anonymous said...

This blog really has become a PR machine for AUSAs. Glad to see your fair and balanced!

David Oscar Markus said...

Yeah you pegged me. I’m a push over for prosecutors.

Anonymous said...

Brave stance...'we need evidence'. Why does he deserve praise for that?

Should we congratulate them when they produce discovery? Brady? A witness list? Early Jencks? Giglio?

I guess he gets a thumbs up for doing his job.

Anonymous said...

So ridiculous, don't even take that bait.

Anonymous said...

Flynn supposedly lied to the FBI in 2017 about whether he discussed sanctions with the russian ambassador. He now says he didnt remember discussing sanctions, and he knew the fbi already had the transcripts of the call. The best brady evidence to support that he did not *knowingly* lie is that the exact FBI officials who interviewed him did not believe he lied.

The 2nd best piece of evidence was not disclosed before the plea. That is that before the 2017 meeting, one of the same fbi officials who interviewed him in 2017 was inserted into a 2016 presidential briefing where flynn was present, with one purpose being to get a "baseline" on flynn...get familiar with his mannerisms to assess him better (ie for truthfulness) if it became necessary.

The existence of this 2016 meeting, and that the fbi was on the lookout to establish a baseline on flynn, is brady because it is favorable to flynn of whether he lied *"knowingly."* It obviously gives significantly more weight to the fbi's observation in 2017 that he did not lie.

Had this info been disclosed, a cross exam of the fbi official would have included the fact that the fbi official did not observe physical manifestations of lying, but **importantly*:

"And you believed he wasnt lying not just based on your observations that day in 2017, but also having studied his demeaor in 2016?"

I see no argument that this isnt brady, but in the AG tv interview on the topic, he curiously maintains brady wasnt violated.

Now that we know Sullivan is having a hearing, will he dare to **even ask** how this isnt brady?

What are the odds?

Anonymous said...

You lie/lay down with dogs, you get fleas.

Anonymous said...

If you think DOM takes it easy on prosecutors, you haven't read one of his latest motions on a misconduct case currently stuck in time waiting for the court to reopen.

Anonymous said...

Try reading. The comment didn't say "he takes it easy on prosecutors." It said he's giving them a lot of publicity recently.Everyone know DOM is a pitbull and all prosecutors fear getting him on case. This type of reading comp is what happens when you don't go to an Ivy.