This editorial first ran in the Ketchikan Daily News:
Justice isn’t done in the federal case involving Alaska’s late Sen. Ted Stevens.
The Justice Department has blamed the system’s corrupt practices for the injustice committed upon Sen. Stevens. It held no one accountable. No one suffered sufficiently for the consequences of the department’s unethical behavior in the Stevens case.
It appears that Justice and the people in its employ are above the law.
Of all people, it should be those employed by Justice to uphold the law and to hold others publicly accountable who should be adamant about not only protecting the department’s credibility, but also the appearance of being credible.
A jury convicted Sen. Stevens in October 2008 of accepting tens of thousands of dollars in home renovations and gifts. Stevens had sought — much to the surprise of Justice Department prosecutors — a quick trial in order to clear his name before that November’s election. (The timing of the charges so close to an upcoming election will prompt speculation about prosecutorial intent well into the future.)
Months after the verdict, when evidence of prosecutorial misconduct emerged, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan threw out the conviction.
Sen. Stevens, who routinely won re-election with 70 percent of Alaska’s vote, narrowly lost his 2008 bid for re-election despite heartfelt proclamations of his innocence.
Alaskans find it difficult to respect a Justice Department that betrayed them, destroyed the late senator’s career and changed the makeup of the U.S. Senate. So do other Americans.
Alaskans want to see evidence that the Justice Department not only recognizes that, but makes amends. It needs to take action in order to begin to rebuild the trust and confidence of the public.
To date, Justice has admitted it made grievous errors in the prosecution of Sen. Stevens.
Judge Sullivan, who seems to understand the severity of Justice’s disgraceful behavior, ordered a special investigation of the Stevens prosecutorial team. Two and a half years later, the investigator, Washington, D.C. lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III, produced a scathing 514-page critique of that team.
The report says that the prosecutors withheld pertinent evidence from the Stevens’ defense team and the jury that by law they were required to provide. The evidence would have proven Sen. Stevens’ testimony to be truthful.
The prosecution team was “permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated Sen. Stevens defense and his testimony,” the report concludes.
The report also says that information withheld would have undermined the testimony of the prosecution’s star witness, Bill Allen. It noted that Allen, a convict on charges of bribery and conspiracy, provided information during the investigation. Allen’s initial story conflicted with his court testimony. But the prosecutors and FBI agent involved “forgot” about the earlier information. Schuelke pointed out that a “complete, simultaneous and long-term memory failure by the entire prosecution team” was “extraordinary” and “strains credulity.”
The prosecution denied misconduct, or, in one case, denied intentional misconduct. All of them pointed at superiors for Justice’s failures.
Schuelke wrote he couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt the prosecutors’ intent in the Stevens case. As a result, he didn’t recommend criminal charges.
But, undoubtedly, Judge Sullivan is reviewing the findings, and he might well come to a different conclusion. The judge who oversees a case has a view unique to all others involved or following proceedings.
The Justice Department still could act beyond new training procedures, holding the guilty parties accountable. Dismissal from Justice might be an outcome. Disbarment is a possibility.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski has introduced legislation, the Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act, to create a nationwide standard for disclosure of evidence that demonstrates the innocence of a defendant to defense attorneys in federal cases. Currently, there are almost 100 varying standards throughout the nation.
The act is a response to the Justice Department’s failures in the Stevens case.
“What happened in the trial of Senator Stevens is unfortunately not an isolated incident, but most Americans do not have the wherewithal that he did to push back against prosecutorial misconduct,” says Murkowski. “While I do believe most federal prosecutors are adhering to the law, it’s clear the rules in place are not preventing ‘hide-the-ball’ prosecutions in cases across the country. There are a few prosecutors out there willing to put a finger on the scales of justice to get more convictions — and this bill seeks to stop that. Justice should be blind, not blindly ignored.”
Alaskans are pleased to see the Stevens case might result in improvements in the law and in the training that prepares federal prosecutors.
But still the case isn’t over until guilty parties in the Justice Department — whether the lawyers in the trenches or their superiors — suffer the full consequences of their action or inaction.
Then, and only then, justice will be served and the Justice Department can rebuild its credibility with the public and within the Justice Department itself.
Comments (17)
Add commentSen Stevens' influence was the target
this was a hatchet job. Sen Murkowski's bill would not have prevented it -- it would've added another layer or two in the prosecution's cover and concealment.
I also suspect it was highly compartmentalized, so that the front line of the prosecution did not necessarily act with malice but were "merely" given the job of securing a conviction with the evidence fed to them. Justice Sullivan should be able to determine if it was a tiered effort (meaning, a conspiracy of tightly controlled information to mask the directors) but I doubt he'll be able to nail anyone to the wall.
As Alaska feels the latent impacts of losing our senior senator and strongest advocate in the federal govt, look to WHO filled the power vacuum -- not Sen Begich, look at the where the influence Sen Stevens had went. It didn't go away, because his influence was the target.
Shame,
All those who abandoned the good Senator when things didn't look too good need to think about their actions and the way they voted, based on a lie! An important election is coming up, please do not vote based on what is said now, but rather look to the past and see the real person and let THAT direct your vote. People say things to garner more votes, those things may or may not materialise. History is a better indicator of what the future holds!
Veco still renovated his house
Just because the case was grossly mishandled, which I admit, this doesn't mean he was innocent.
Bill Allen/VECO renovated his house to the tune of $100,000+
Was VECO in the house renovation business?
No, they were not.
Was VECO instrumental in bribing many Alaskan politicians in the past?
Um, I guess that would be a fair statement.
Should politicians really accept $100,000 house renovation gifts from people aligned with big oil, then 'forget' to declare these kinds of things?
No, they should not.
None of what he did here passes the smell test for innocence.
If it looks like a quid pro quo, walks like a quid pro quo, makes your house look nicer and adds value to it, it must be a quid pro quo.
(quack!)
Agree with Joe
Prosecuters mishandled the case, they should face the penalties under the law for that. But it doesn't exhonorate the senator - he was guilty as the summer day is long.
@Jo
does it make sense that a person with a distinguished career in public service, considerable affluence, and- most importantly - impeccable integrity would put all that on the line over a house renovation? Because that kind of blatant disregard of the protocols should leave slug trails and there were none, which is why the conviction was overturned.
But if you're willing to take the word of Bill Allen, that's another story.
DUH!
LOOK at the before and after pictures of the meager house in Girdwood and its transformation into a high end home. Then look for any evidence of payment for the transformation. You'll not find any. For even Ted indicated in court he could not show how the payments might have been made or even if they were made. Maybe the dog at the receipts along with his homework.
@DUH!
then you're saying that the whole op-piece is based on a fictitious premise -
"The report says that the prosecutors withheld pertinent evidence from the Stevens’ defense team and the jury that by law they were required to provide. The evidence would have proven Sen. Stevens’ testimony to be truthful."
Then your implication is that Sen. Stevens' testimony was untruthful.
If it was simply "mishandling" the evidence, that could've been dismissed as sloppy procedures. So why did Judge Sullivan order an investigation of the prosecutorial team, unless there was reason to suspect that something other than the interests of justice were in play?
Unfortunately, I'm afraid
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the Sen. Stevens' case will have to get in line, way at the back of the line, and wait their turn for some further investigations. With the corruption and stink coming out of the current Justice Department it could be a long wait.
It's just one case in a long list of improprieties with this bunch. Ask J. Christian Adams, a DOJ whistleblower. His book is called “Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department and is about the New Black Panthers' case involving voter intimidation.
Then there's Fast and Furious and lawsuits against the voters of Arizona and on and on. Thank goodness for Darrell Issa and his persistence.
Best thing, send the bigot (yes, I said bigot) Holder packing with your vote for president in November.
Deviant Psychology
Hi Calypso. Sigmund Freud came up with the concept of "projection," where you essentially accuse others of what you, yourself do. It's a common phenomenon and is often employed rhetorically to take the steam out accusations directed at oneself.
In this case you, and a bunch of other white guys with a history of prejudice and racial resentment, are accusing the victims of that prejudice (be they women, Latinos, blacks, atheists, or any other group not your own) of being the real racists/sexists/whateverists.
So you think everyone but yourselves has a prejudice problem. Does that make much sense? Of course not. It's not everyone else. It's you.
Question sent to all members of Senate Committee BEFORE Hearing
It is my understanding that the Senate Judiciary Committee will meet this Wednesday, March 28, for a Hearing on the Special Counsel's Report on the Prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens. At this hearing, I believe that at least one U. S. Senator should ask the following question:
Why did Special Prosecutor Henry F. Schuelke, III not recommend in his report that the federal prosecutors, who he found to have engaged in the unconstitutional suppression of “Brady” exculpatory and government witness impeaching evidence at ex-Senator Stevens criminal trial, be prosecuted under provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 242, the criminal analog of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In 1976, a five-justice majority of the U. S. Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, effectively eliminated the principal means of redress for Brady evidence disclosure constitutional law violations by granting absolute immunity to government trial prosecutors from 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil lawsuits brought by “wrongfully convicted” criminal defendants alleging such evidence disclosure violations. (See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431-32 n. 34)
Three preeminent justices in the history of the Supreme Court - Justices Byron White, William Brennan, and Thurgood Marshall - dissented from the majority’s ruling on this critical constitutional issue. In the dissenting opinion written by Justice White, the three justices prophetically warned of injury to the judicial process as a consequence of the majority’s ruling and made unambiguous that the Court’s ruling violated the clear intent of Congress’ purpose in enacting the law:
“Most seriously, I disagree with any implication that absolute immunity for prosecutors extends to suits based on claims of unconstitutional suppression of evidence because I believe such a rule would threaten to injure the judicial process and to interfere with Congress’ purpose in enacting 42 U.S.C. 1983, without any support in statutory language or history.”
The five-justice majority of the Supreme Court in Imbler did respond to the specific criticism of the three-justice dissent regarding the lack of adequate alternative deterrence measures to prevent unscrupulous government prosecutors from engaging in the “reprehensible” (to use the majority’s descriptive word) practice of Brady-evidence disclosure violations:
“To be sure this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty. . . . We emphasize that the immunity of prosecutors from liability in suits under § 1983 does not leave the public powerless to deter misconduct or to punish that which occurs. This Court has never suggested that the policy considerations which compel civil immunity for certain governmental officials also place them beyond the reach of the criminal law. Even judges, cloaked with absolute civil immunity for centuries, could be punished criminally for willful deprivations of constitutional rights on the strength of 18 U.S.C. § 242, the criminal analog of § 1983. The prosecutor would fare no better for his willful acts.” (Imbler at 428-29)
@p - sorry but you're the
@p - sorry but you're the queen of projection. Just sayin...and isn't it a little presumptuous to assume I'm a "white guy"? Next you'll have me belonging to the Klan.
"The attorney general’s obsession with race has been monomaniacal. Within the first month of his tenure, he told DOJ employees at a Black History Month event that, when it comes to race, America is “essentially a nation of cowards.” In an interview with The New York Times late last year, Holder claimed that attacks on him were “a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him, both due to the nature of our relationship, and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American."
"He even used a similar rationale to defend Obamacare, writing an op-ed with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius where he compared attempts to overturn the law through the courts to efforts to defeat Civil Rights legislation decades earlier."
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/15/the-troubled-mind-of-eric-holder/2/
So you're using one of those
So you're using one of those white guys with a propensity towards projecting as evidence that you're not projecting?
And yes, you are most definitely a white guy. Or at least a semi-sentient artificial intelligence programmed to think it's a white guy.
@pp You just made the most
@pp
You just made the most ignorant and racist comment I have read on the forum in quite sometime. Good job, once in awhile I enjoy your perspective but that last comment just nailed it for me, I'll be putting your posts in the 'entertainment with high levels of hate and prejudice' section.
Btw, you can be prejudice towards anyone, kind of how your prejudice to anyone that doesn't agree with you and your narrow view, you know every white person, man, non democrat that has an opinion.
Yes, Ted was guilty. He
Yes, Ted was guilty. He never met a bribe he didn't take. Ted was one of the fastes politicians to reach millionaire status, and it wasnt due to his salary as a senator. That said, I voted for him in his last election, mostly as a statement that shoddy law enforcement was not acceptable
@ Grendel
Your words: "does it make sense that a person with a distinguished career in public service, considerable affluence, and- most importantly - impeccable integrity would put all that on the line over a house renovation?"
Yes. It makes perfect sense. Like many career politicians, they sometimes consider themselves bulletproof and invincible if caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
He was a career politician. He was cozy and comfy with big oil. All of the above have a distinguished reputation for bribery.
Not many of my friends would renovate my house for $100,000 and expect nothing in return, even my millionaire friends.
No one is that generous.
The conviction was overturned because the case was grossly mishandled, not because Stevens could prove that he actually paid for those renovations. It seems it would be an easy thing to prove: a bill from a contractor, a credit card statement, a receipt from Home Depot.
100 percent agree with JO
Everyone needs to quit trying to wash Ted's dirty deeds away. It's not rocket science people. The Feds overstepped and lied but it changes nothing about Ted's responsibility and honesty to the people of this state. He wrecked his own career and all the opinion pieces in the world will not change the fact that he took advantage of the office and sold out the people.
Well there you go - indicted,
Well there you go - indicted, convicted and sentenced in the public arena.
Be careful what you wish for, mama t.