Project Save Justice Documentary

Review of Russian Helo Conviction Sought

Source: Wired Magazine
By Sharon Weinberger
April 29, 2009, 10:52 am

For those who want a lesson in the perils of buying foreign weapons for the U.S. government, it makes sense to take note of an appeal that is currently winding its way through the federal courts. Last week, a magistrate judge issued a “show cause” order in response to an emergency motion filed on behalf of Jeffrey Stayton, a federal prisoner who was once a top U.S. government expert on Russian helicopters.

At issue is a little known trial that took place in Alabama in 2007, when Stayton, then an Army official, and William Childree, a defense contractor, were convicted of a scheme to defraud the government. The contract in question was for the purchase of two Russian Mi-17 helicopters.

The Justice Department accused Childree, whose firm was under contract to buy the helicopters for the Army, of paying about $61,000 to Stayton in exchange for favorable treatment. To support its claim that the money was a personal loan—not a bribe or payoff—the defense submitted a note, dated 2002, written by Stayton thanking Childree for the loan and promising repayment. The government, which asserted the note was an obvious fraud written years later to cover the defendants’ tracks, submitted the document to the FBI for forensic testing. After DOJ received the lab reports, it told the defense that the results were “inconclusive,” but declined to release the actual report.

In December 2007, both Stayton and Childree were convicted and later sentenced to prison.

This case is worth highlighting in the context of more recent revelations that the U.S. Army steered $500 million in limited and no-bid contracts to ARINC to purchase Mi-17s for Iraq and Afghanistan. Russian helicopters seem to attract a lot of intrigue.

But what’s interesting about this case right now is not the helicopters per se, but the involvement of theDepartment of Justice Public Integrity section, which has until May 4 to respond to allegations that it withheld exculpatory FBI forensic testing (a separate claim is that the government failed to produce a key witness; I’ll also get to that another time).

This has a familiar ring to it. The DOJ’s Public Integrity section is currently under the spotlight for its bungling of the prosecution of Ted Stevens, the former Alaskan senator who turned pork barrel politics into a form of high art during his four decades in Congress. A federal judge recently tossed Steven’s conviction for failing to report gifts (such as a nifty massage chair) after it was discovered that attorneys in the Public Integrity section withheld potentially exculpatory evidence. Six DOJ lawyers are themselves now under investigation.

Getting back to the Russian helicopter case, which involves the same section of DOJ, I was curious why the government attorneys would so steadfastly refuse to turn over the forensic analysis, since they argued back in 2007 that they did “not believe this document is even arguably exculpatory of the charges…”

This raises an obvious question: if that claim were true, then why not release the analysis?

For the moment, I’m going to set aside the merits of this court case, and deal strictly with the forensic testing, since it’s the subject of multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests I have filed dating back over six months.

When I first filed a request last year to see the forensic analysis, the FBI, amusingly, told me they could not locate any files on Stayton or Childree (an interesting response considering that the FBI took part in the multi-year investigation). After I traveled to Alabama to examine court records and obtained the FBI case file number for the analysis, the FBI located the relevant documents. It has now been sitting with the FBI’s FOIA office for several months waiting to be assigned for disclosure review; weekly calls from my research assistant have showed little progress on that front (a separate FOIA, to the Department of Justice, has also yielded nothing).

In February, attorneys at Frohsin & Barger in Birmingham, Alabama took up the Stayton case pro bono and filed an appeal on his behalf, noting the withheld FBI analysis, among other issues. They also asked DOJ for a copy of the FBI testing, initially with no response. (An appeal has also been filed by the co-defendant, Childree, on separate grounds.)

Since neither the FBI nor DOJ have shown any indication of moving forward with my FOIA requests, I decided to take the direct approach: I called DOJ and told them I would be writing on this issue for Danger Room. Within minutes, DOJ somehow managed to locate the file—at least some of it—and release it to Stayton’s new defense team (who, in turn, released the analysis to me).

Reading the forensic analysis, it’s pretty clear why DOJ would hold on to it like a 10-year old with a bad report card; testing performed by the Secret Service for the FBI confirmed the ink used in the note was indeed in production in 2002, the year the note is dated. This does not prove when the note was written, but it does discount one obvious sign of fraud, which was the sole purpose of the test.

DOJ has declined all requests for interviews on this case. I e-mailed and called again last week to ask why the department is still refusing to release the in-house FBI tests. So far, I have received no reply. But several months ago, in response to a written question about the forensic analysis, the department replied: “The government complied with all of its discovery obligations under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence.”

But treating the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence as a game of hide and seek has its drawbacks, as the Stevens case demonstrates. It’s perhaps even more troubling in the Russian helicopter case, because DOJ at trial and sentencing specifically argued that the note in question was fraudulent, yet refused to disclose testing that showed no evidence of fraud.

The Justice Department, according to Stayton’s defense attorneys, has still not released the rest of the testing results. “In the wake of Public Integrity outrage, it is not at all surprising that the Ashcroft/Gonzales Era DOJ elected to suppress such key evidence to avoid the prospect of a jury acquittal,” Henry Frohsin, an attorney for Stayton, told Danger Room.

“What is so disturbing now is the same denials seem to be emanating from the prior prosecutors without a new review or fresh oversight,” he said. “ How in the world can one justify withholding a forensic laboratory result that lends credence or corroborates the position of defendant?”

[Speaking of missing documents; I’m also still waiting for the Army to locate the very, very special letter outlining ARINC’s unique relationship with the Russian manufacturer of Mi-17s, as well as a purported market survey the Army says it conducted to justify the outrageous price it paid for Iraq’s helos. I'm guessing I'll get the FBI lab reports first, because at least I know those really exist. Also, tune in later this week as I finally get to writing about the oh-so mysterious Threat Systems Management Office, and its strange role in buying Russian helicopters.]

Judge Criticizes Prosecutors in Asbestos Case

Source: The Washington Post, washingtonpost.com
Associated Press
Tuesday, April 28, 2009

MISSOULA, Mont., April 27 -- The federal judge in the W.R. Grace asbestos case told Justice Department prosecutors Monday that they "presented discombobulated allegations" and didn't understand the evidence.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy did not rule immediately on defense motions to dismiss charges against Grace, a Columbia, Md.-based firm, and several former executives. But he raised the possibility of declaring a mistrial in the case, which has been before a jury for two months. Jurors, absent during the hearing Monday, were due back in court Tuesday.
Acting on a motion from the prosecution, Molloy did dismiss charges against one former executive, Robert Walsh. Prosecutors said they lacked evidence to continue their case against Walsh.

The government alleges that Grace and five former executives concealed health risks posed by asbestos-laced vermiculite from a northwestern Montana mine that closed in 1990. Attorneys for some Libby residents say asbestos has sickened about 2,000 people in and around the community and killed about 225.

The judge said that he mistrusts the testimony of a key government witness, Robert Locke, a former Grace executive who testified that he helped the company impede a government study of health issues related to the mine near Libby.

"Do you want to have these jurors convict someone on perjured testimony?" Molloy asked.

"We don't believe it's perjured testimony," replied Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Racicot.

Another federal prosecutor, David Cassidy, said that Locke's testimony was "more consistent than inconsistent" and that documents corroborate much of it.

Grace lawyer David Bernick said that misleading and prejudicial testimony have so tainted the trial that it cannot be salvaged. Bernick said the case has been litigated for political reasons, aimed at advancing the agenda of the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversaw years of environmental cleanup in Libby.

Holder to District Judges: DOJ Will Confront Misconduct

Source: The BLT: Blog of the Legal Times
Mark Scarcella
April 28, 2009

Addressing a group of chief judges of federal district courts last week, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. vowed the Justice Department will take seriously failures of prosecutors to perform their duties, according to a judge who participated in the conference.
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf of Massachusetts, who has pressed the Justice Department to be more aggressive in confronting allegations of attorney misconduct, wrote Holder on April 23 “with a renewed hope” that he will tackle misbehavior. Wolf’s letter was disclosed today in a mob racketeering case in Boston in which Wolf cited a prosecutor for misconduct.Wolf wrote that former Attorneys General Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey did not respond to letters in recent years concerning allegations of misconduct in criminal cases in Massachusetts. In his letter to Holder, Wolf thanked him for his remarks to the chief judges.“We appreciate your determination to assure that Department of Justice attorneys perform their duties honorably and ably, and to take seriously any failure to do so,” Wolf wrote in the five-page letter. Holder had asked the judges, Wolf said in the letter, to report to him directly when the judges encounter a problem.
Wolf noted the recent decision of U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of misconduct in the Ted Stevens case in the District of Columbia. The special counsel is investigating whether six prosecutors deliberately violated court orders and rules in the Stevens case. At Holder’s request, the judge tossed Stevens’ conviction earlier this month.
Sullivan’s action in the Stevens case, Wolf wrote in the letter, “confirms that other judges share my concern” about prosecution misconduct. “As the Stevens case also indicates, prosecutorial misconduct is neither a rare nor merely historical problem,” Wolf wrote.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/04/holder-to-district-judges-doj-will-confront-misconduct.html

Director John McTiernan to Discuss Political Prosecutions on Young Turks Show

Director John McTiernan, of Die Hard fame will be on The Young Turks Show this evening, April 28th discussing the intuitive new documentary, "The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove". The film delves into the depths of the Justice Department corruption, under Karl Rove, and sheds light on many of the 600 politically motivated cases brought against Democrats across the country between 2002 and 2008.

Tune into XM Satellite Radio/Air America to hear the live interview at 8:40 pm.

The Siegelman Case--Editorial

Source: The New York Times, nytimes.com
April 25, 2009

Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent decision to drop all of the charges against Ted Stevens, the former Republican senator from Alaska, because of prosecutorial misconduct raises an important question: What about Don Siegelman? A bipartisan group of 75 former state attorneys general has written to Mr. Holder asking him to take a fresh look at the former Alabama governor’s case. He should do so right away.

Mr. Siegelman was convicted in 2006 on dubious corruption charges. He spent nine months in prison before being released on appeal, and he faces years more behind bars. He has long insisted that the case against him was politically motivated and that prosecutors engaged in an array of professional and ethical violations.

Many aspects of the case require further scrutiny. United States Attorney Leura Canary is the wife of a prominent Republican political operative who was a strong opponent of Mr. Siegelman. Her office prosecuted Mr. Siegelman. Ms. Canary said that she recused herself from the prosecution, but questions have been raised about whether she actually did.

Mr. Siegelman’s supporters have long argued that he was targeted by the Justice Department because he was Alabama’s leading Democratic politician and stood a good chance of once again being elected governor. A Republican lawyer in Alabama, Jill Simpson, has said that she heard Ms. Canary’s husband, William Canary, say that he had discussed the prosecution with Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser.

In the case of Mr. Stevens, who was convicted of felony charges for failing to disclose gifts and services, Mr. Holder was so troubled by the way the prosecution was carried out that he decided to drop the case entirely.

According to the Siegelman camp, at least three of the same officials who have been accused of prosecutorial misconduct in the Stevens case were involved in Mr. Siegelman’s prosecution. If true, this alone would seem to justify a thorough investigation of the case.

AGs Demand Siegelman Review

Source: Harper's Magazine, harpers.org
April 22, 2009
By Scott Horton

Seventy-five former state attorneys general, Democrats and Republicans, have written to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that he personally review the file relating to former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman. According to a report in today’s New York Times (as usual, the matter is not reported in the major Alabama newspapers, which championed Siegelman’s prosecution), the attorneys general cite

“gravely troublesome facts” about his prosecution that raise questions about the fairness and due process of the trial. “We believe that if prosecutorial misconduct is found, as in the case of Senator Ted Stevens, then dismissal should follow in this case as well,” the group said in the letter, which was organized by Robert Abrams, a former attorney general of New York.

The links to the Stevens case are numerous. The grave prosecutorial misconduct that led to the decision to overturn the Stevens conviction is virtually identical to the accusations in the Siegelman case. The charges are also sustained in the Siegelman case, as in the Stevens case, by a whistleblower inside the prosecution team. Moreover, the cases involve many of the same prosecutors, now themselves under internal Justice Department investigation for ethics lapses

Justice Department Misconduct Goes Deep

Yesterday, a New York Times article reported the request for an investigation into Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman's prosecution. This comes on the heels of the case being dropped against former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens because of prosecutorial misconduct. The similarities between the two cases are too many to ignore. The cases are parallel in the types of misconduct, as well as the prosecutors in the cases. Stevens case was dropped, and now there is a bi-partisan effort from 75 former states attorneys to investigate the prosecution of the Siegelman/Scrushy case.

Why is this significant? Because these two cases are just two of the highest profile cases that are highlighted in our documentary. A new political documentary, "The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove", directed by John McTiernan, highlights case after case of political targets that were hunted and tried by the U.S. Department of Justice. The film reveals startling evidence of a Republican led witch-hunt and offers indisputable evidence of Democrats across the country and across every level of politics who were victims of a rogue Justice Department on a political rampage.

In the months leading up to the 2008 general election, indictments of elected Democrats increased by nearly 50 percent...and each of the cases demonstrate disturbing parallels to the Ted Stevens and Don Siegelman cases. It is unknown how deep the Department of Justice went to try to keep Republicans in power, but "The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove" delves deeper than any other current account to examine the corruption of Justice under the Bush administration.
View the film at http://www.politicalprosecutions.org.
Request for interviews, contact us at media@projectsavejustice.com.

Review of Governor’s Conviction Sought

Source: The New York Times, www.nytimes.com
April 22, 2009
By John Schwartz and Charlie Savage

Less than a month after the Justice Department asked a judge to drop the case against former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska because of prosecutorial misconduct, 75 former state attorneys general from both parties have urged Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to conduct a similar investigation of the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, who was convicted nearly three years ago on bribery and corruption charges.

In a letter to Mr. Holder, the attorneys general said Mr. Siegelman’s defense lawyers had raised “gravely troublesome facts” about his prosecution that raise questions about the fairness and due process of the trial.

“We believe that if prosecutorial misconduct is found, as in the case of Senator Ted Stevens, then dismissal should follow in this case as well,” the group said in the letter, which was organized by Robert Abrams, a former attorney general of New York.

Lawyers for Mr. Siegelman, a Democrat, have long accused the Justice Department under President George W. Bush of conducting a politically motivated prosecution that they say was filled with irregularities, including a failure to turn over pertinent information to the defense team.

In the weeks since the Stevens prosecution was dropped over similar issues, Mr. Siegelman’s team has made efforts to draw parallels between the two cases.

One of Mr. Siegelman’s lawyers, Vincent F. Kilborn III, said in an interview from his office in Mobile, Ala., that at least three of the officials who have been accused of misconduct in the Stevens investigation have played a role in the Siegelman case, including Patty Merkamp Stemler, the chief of the appellate section of the criminal division at the Justice Department, who is being held in contempt in the Stevens case over documents demanded by the judge that were not produced.

“Here we are minding our own business,” Mr. Kilborn said, “and this Ted Stevens thing comes out — and some of the same cast of characters are in the Siegelman case, as it turns out.”

Mr. Stevens, a Republican, lost his Senate seat last year after being convicted of felony charges that he failed to disclose gifts and services. Mr. Holder dropped the charges on April 1 because of evidence withheld by prosecutors who are now the subject of an ethics investigation.

Laura Sweeney, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility is investigating the Siegelman case.

But she pointed out that a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit recently upheld Mr. Siegelman’s conviction, and because he is appealing that ruling, “the department will continue to litigate this matter in the courts, not in the media.”

Mr. Kilborn wrote a letter to Mr. Holder on April 3 laying out several of his charges of misconduct by prosecutors. He said Ms. Stemler sent a letter to lawyers on both sides concerning accusations that emerged in the appeals process that jurors had exchanged improper e-mail messages during the trial.

The letter revealed a private communication between United States marshals and the judge in the case that Mr. Kilborn characterized as inappropriate. The letter from Ms. Stemler came so late in the process, he said, that it limited options for the defense.

Ms. Stemler’s letter stated that the communication between the judge and the marshals had no effect on the case, however, and that it was only being revealed “out of an abundance of caution.” Mr. Kilborn scoffed at that logic, saying that any private dealings with the judge should have been noted at the time.

In the interview, but not in the letter, he noted that William Welch, chief of the department’s public integrity section, and his principal deputy, Brenda Morris, were held in contempt in the Stevens case and had a measure of involvement in the Siegelman case, though he did not offer evidence of misdeeds in his case.

Mr. Siegelman’s conviction centered on a donation by the former chief executive of HealthSouth, Richard M. Scrushy, to help retire a campaign debt. Prosecutors said that the donation was a deal for Mr. Scrushy’s appointment to the state hospital licensing board; Mr. Siegelman said it was nothing of the sort.

This is the third effort by Mr. Abrams to organize former attorneys general to help Mr. Siegelman, and the largest yet, with at least 10 Republicans signing their names. Grant Woods, a Republican and former attorney general from Arizona, said “nobody who signed that letter did so lightly,” especially those in his party. The issues transcended politics, he said, and the Kilborn letter raised serious questions.

“We think there’s something there to investigate,” he said. “This is not a desperate appeal by a convicted criminal defendant — these are substantial allegations that have great weight.”

Ultimately, however, the attorneys general have asked for something they have, in effect, already received. The Justice Department quietly disclosed in May 2008 that its Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics watchdog, had begun an investigation into “allegations of selective or politicized prosecution” in four cases, including the one against Mr. Siegelman.

The Obama administration declined to talk about the details of the investigation.

For his part, Mr. Siegelman, who has been released from prison while awaiting the appeals of his conviction, said he was “enormously grateful” to the attorneys general for their intervention.



Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove:A Documentary Record

Press Release

Project Save Justice and world renowned film maker John McTiernan announce the release of The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove, a video documentation of the systematic prosecution of Democrats by the Bush Justice Department. Drawing inspiration from the Shields Report, a 2007 and 2009 academic analysis showing that during the Bush years, the U.S. Department of Justice prosecuted seven times more Democrats than Republicans, the hour long film delves deeper than the few high profile cases that have caught the attention of the mainstream media, and instead sheds light on many of the 600 cases brought against Democrats across the country between 2002 and 2008.
In the hands of McTiernan, director of the Hollywood blockbusters, Predator, The Hunt for Red October, and the Die Hard trilogy, The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove offers a documented record of the pervasive misuse of the Justice Department. Sadly, as the film documents, Democrats were targeted at all levels of the system and in many states across the country. The film reveals startling evidence supporting the use of the U.S. Department of Justice to create a permanent Republican majority. In fact, statistics show that in the 15 months leading up to the 2008 general election, indictments of elected Democrats increased by nearly 50%. The soul-stirring documentary offers convincing evidence to indicate that a vigorous and comprehensive strategy was pursued to
attack lower levels of the Democratic Party designed to completely uproot and undermine any challenges to Republican political power.
Each case revealed in The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove contains a startling similarity in tactics employed by the DOJ; the compiling of excessive charges, media leaks before the cases ever got to court and extreme machinations to move cases in front of conservative judges with histories of substantial ideological political involvement.
This film serves to highlight the issue of selective enforcement of the law; the same body of work that has already been widely publicized in print form, now comes packaged in a powerful and compelling "first person" interview style format. Listen as chilling personal accounts of corruption, coercion, and deception on the part of those entrusted with enforcing the law are revealed.
Puerto Rico's Governor Acevedo comes under attack soon after the midterm elections. Following Acevedo's election, a politically motivated campaign to unseat him was pursued by members of the DOJ. Many around the Governor were indicted and a Bush appointed Judge was flown in to try the case and delayed rulings on the soundness of the case until after Acevedo had lost his reelection bid. After the damage was done, 15 charges were thrown out and Acevedo was acquitted on all remaining charges.
Another account of political profiling by the DOJ was revealed in the story of Meg Scott Phipps, the daughter and granddaughter of two former North Carolina Governors. Phipps was thought to be eyeing a candidacy for governor when she was charged with 30 separate felonies related to campaign contributions at a state fair. The U.S. Attorney indicted or threatened nearly everyone associated with Phipps, including her 75-year old father. Once Phipps was in custody, she was kept incommunicado for nearly three weeks, by moving her from multiple jails in several states, until she finally pleaded guilty to lesser charges. The Republican judge found nothing improper with this action and gave Phipps the maximum sentence of three years in prison. All witnesses testifying
against Phipps had been indicted and were promised indemnity for their testimony.
The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove concludes with a riveting "where are they now" segment, revealing a myriad of Republican U.S. Attorneys, judges, and elected officials who have since made millions as partners in prestigious law firms or who were promoted to higher judicial office, while their politically profiled victims are left destitute or serving out the remainder of their unjust jail sentences.
The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove goes deeper than any other media account to date into the widespread corruption of the Justice system under the Bush administration. You may think you know what happened and to whom, but The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove provides unshakeable proof that the crimes of our Government were more egregious than ever thought and the work to earnestly right these unspeakable wrongs is yet to even begin.
Copies of the video & interviews can be requested at media@projectsavejustice.com
The film can be viewed at www.politicalprosecutions.org

Justice at Justice?

Source: Rood from Washington
ABCnews.com
Justin Rood is a Washington, D.C.-based investigator for ABC's Brian Ross Unit.

Maybe there are second acts in American lives, after all.
The Obama White House may reinstate at least one of the U.S. Attorneys fired by the Bush Administration, part of its infamous axing of nine top federal prosecutors in 2006, reports Murray Waas for the Atlantic.
The White House Counsel's Office is "quietly vetting" former Nevada U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden to return as a U.S. Attorney, Waas says.

Former Attorney Paul Minor Did Not Attend His Wife's Funeral

April 17, 2009 09:02 AM

JACKSON, MS (WLBT) - The funeral for Paul Minor's wife of 41 years was held in New Orleans Friday, but former attorney Minor was not there. He was not allowed to attend.

The Federal Bureau of prisons denied his request to go to the funeral because Minor had been allowed to briefly visit his dying wife in February. Minor's attorney, Hiram Eastland, Jr., says quote: "The Bureau of Prisons based their denial on an antiquated, Draconian, anti-family policy of forcing a prisoner to choose between being with their wife while they are dying or after they have already passed away."

A bureau of prisons spokesperson said wardens quote - "Make determinations regarding inmate trips based on established policies and procedures applicable to the entire inmate population."

'Die Hard' Director Indicted in Wiretaps Case

Source: THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
April 18, 2009


LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A federal grand jury on Friday indicted a Hollywood director who had withdrawn a guilty plea to a charge accusing him of lying to federal agents investigating a celebrity wiretapping case.

John McTiernan, who directed ''Die Hard'' and ''Predator,'' was indicted on two counts of making false statements to the FBI about private investigator Anthony Pellicano and one count of perjury for allegedly lying to a federal judge while trying to withdraw his guilty plea.

His attorney, S. Todd Neal, said the indictment is ''really nothing new'' and promised to rigorously defend his client.

''The prosecutor has taken one count and tried to expand it into more charges in a new indictment,'' he said. ''There seems to be retribution because John refused to play ball the way the prosecutors wanted and because we were successful on appeal.''

McTiernan pleaded guilty in 2006 to making ''knowingly false'' statements to an FBI agent about Pellicano, whom he admitted hiring to wiretap a business associate.

But before he was sentenced, McTiernan asked the judge to withdraw his plea, arguing he didn't have adequate legal representation, was jet-lagged and under the influence of alcohol when he pleaded guilty.

The judge refused so McTiernan, 58, appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated his four-month sentence and ruled that he was entitled to a hearing on whether he could withdraw his plea.

In February, he was allowed to reverse his plea.

Pellicano was convicted last year of wiretapping film producer Charles Roven for McTiernan and bugging phones of celebrities and others to get information for his clients. He was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison.

RestoreJusticeAtJustice.com

RestoreJusticeAtJustice.com

A VelvetRevolution.us Campaign


Under the Bush administration, the Justice Department was driven by ideology, and prosecutions were often used to settle scores and intimidate the opposition. In fact, the GOP, under the direction of Karl Rove, used the DoJ to target political enemies including Democratic contributors and those who were a threat to GOP electoral gains and big business interests. The Department was used as an arm of the White House to destroy these Democrats. This political profiling resulted in the criminal prosecution of many on the enemies list, including Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and trial lawyer Paul Minor.

Barack Obama and Eric Holder promised to return justice to the Justice Department and free the department from politics. We are now insisting that that promise be fulfilled by righting the wrongs of political profiling and prosecutions under the previous administration. We call on Attorney General Holder to immediately vacate the convictions of Siegelman and Minor, to investigate and identify others who have been politically prosecuted, and to vacate their convictions. Political profiling, like racial profiling, is wrong; when it results in a criminal prosecution, it constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. Our letter to AG Holder, endorsed by organizations representing hundreds of thousands of citizens and signed by many patriotic Americans, makes clear that Mr. Holder must act quickly to restore justice at the Department of Justice.

We ask other organizations to sign on to this campaign by sending an email to RestoreJusticeAtJustice@velvetrevolution.us. Individuals can sign on using the form below. This campaign will include a broad public relations push so we urge everyone to spread the word.


Attorney General Eric Holder April 13, 2009
Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Holder:

Thank you for taking the necessary steps to vacate the conviction of Senator Ted Stevens because of misconduct by federal prosecutors. We now ask that you quickly do the same for all Bush-era politically motivated cases, starting with Don Siegelman and Paul Minor. Such action is necessary to restore public confidence in the rule of law and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and to rectify a vast and manifest injustice. You must act soon, because the victims of such prosecutions are now suffering—some of them cruelly. It is unacceptable that any one of them should have to endure imprisonment, financial ruin, and even loss of family while courts ponder whether trial error occurred.

It is well established that the previous DOJ was controlled by partisans who misused their authority by targeting Democrats and others with viewpoints different from their own. As a result, people have been variously wronged, either by (1) rejection for employment at DOJ, (2) dismissal from positions there, or (3) trumped-up and/or partisan-targeted criminal prosecution. Under your leadership, the DOJ has moved toward ending such abuse. With your investigations of the hiring practices at DOJ and the US Attorney firings, you have begun to take concrete steps to deal with Points (1) and (2). As to Point (3), however, not enough has been done. Other than early, still-cursory DOJ investigations of problems with the prosecution of Don Siegelman and Paul Minor, your office has announced no action or intention to redress well-documented instances of selective criminal prosecutions carried out by the Bush administration.

A preponderance of evidence makes clear that zealous partisans in both the Bush White House and DOJ used their positions to protect and/or empower pro-Bush Republicans, while targeting those who disagreed—primarily Democrats—as enemies. Certain politicians, such as Gov. Siegelman, were targeted for threatening hoped-for GOP electoral gains, while certain jurists and attorneys, such as Oliver Diaz and Paul Minor, were punished for obstructing the intentions of the party's allies in big business.

As Bobby Kennedy Jr. and Brendan DeMelle recently reported in an article urging the release of Paul Minor, a study by University of Missouri Professors Donald Shields and John Cragan shows that "eighty percent of the Bush DOJ's political investigations targeted Democrats -- 5.6 Democrats for every Republican investigated by U.S. Attorneys for political misconduct. Shields noted in Congressional testimony that ‘such selective investigation and prosecution rates’ represent a clear bias in the severely disproportionate ‘political profiling’ of Democrats under Bush.”

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld most charges against Gov. Siegelman, with everyone involved deliberately ignoring the huge elephant in that courtroom—i.e., that post-trial revelations, deemed inadmissible by the appellate judges, pointed to profound political corruption as well as prosecutorial abuse. The governor should not have to wait months or years for a court to address these issues when you have the authority to do so at once.

And then there is Paul Minor, an attorney now in federal prison for a “crime” related to the funding of Democratic candidates and causes. Minor’s wife is dying of cancer in a hospital in Baton Rouge. Last month, he was given a three-hour pass to spend a moment with her (under supervision), but she had no chance to talk to him because she had been given her pain medication and lay fast asleep throughout his visit. Why should this man have to spend another hour away from his wife’s bedside, awaiting the decision of a court, when the flagrant partisan intent behind his prosecution should move the DOJ to withdraw charges, just as you did in Sen. Stevens' case? **

Selective prosecution for political advantage is a prosecutorial abuse at least as troubling as the wrongs in Sen. Stevens' case and, arguably, far more dangerous. We therefore ask that you immediately order the dismissal of charges against Don Siegelman and Paul Minor, and move quickly to investigate and identify other cases mounted by the Bush Administration for political advantage and, where appropriate, vacate them immediately. Only through such righteous action, which is wholly in your power, can we be sure that justice will, at last, be done, and that America's courts may once again deserve the public's confidence.

Sincerely,

Brad Friedman
Co-Founder, VelvetRevolution.us

** On the evening of April 13, 2009, Sylvia Minor died without her husband by her side after the DOJ opposed both bail pending appeal and a compassionate bedside furlough.

Ted Stevens Rejected Deal to Admit Guilt

Source: The New York Times, nytimes.com
April 14, 2009
By Neil A. Lewis

WASHINGTON — Ted Stevens, the former senator from Alaska, turned down a plea offer from federal prosecutors that would have spared him a trial and jail time but required him to plead guilty to a single felony count, according to newly disclosed records.

Mr. Stevens’s lawyers rejected the proposal on his behalf, according to transcripts of discussions between the trial judge and lawyers for both sides. The transcripts were sealed until the judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court, recently ordered them opened.

The disclosure of the offer and rejection of a plea bargain, first reported Monday on the Web site of Legal Times, is the latest twist in the case of Mr. Stevens, a Republican whose conviction on ethics charges was recently thrown out by Judge Sullivan because of errors by prosecutors who are now themselves the subject of an ethics inquiry.

On July 31, just weeks before the trial was to begin, Judge Sullivan asked the lawyers in a private conference if there had been any negotiations on a plea agreement. Brendan Sullivan, Mr. Stevens’s lawyer, said “they did offer us no-jail disposition” for pleading guilty to one felony count. “We turned it down,” Mr. Sullivan added.

In October, a jury found Mr. Stevens guilty on seven felony counts in connection with Senate disclosure forms that did not list gifts and renovation services, largely for a family residence in Girdwood, Alaska. During the five-week trial, Judge Sullivan repeatedly scolded Justice Department prosecutors for improperly withholding information that defense lawyers could have used to bolster their case.

Mr. Stevens, who is 85, lost his bid for re-election by a close margin within days of the verdict. But Judge Sullivan had not yet sentenced Mr. Stevens, who faced an almost certain jail term, because he was still considering motions from Mr. Stevens’s lawyers to order a new trial because of the prosecutors’ errors.

Before Judge Sullivan ruled, however, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., said earlier this month that a new team of government lawyers he had assigned to the case discovered a new instance of the prosecution team’s withholding information that could have been used by the defense. Mr. Holder asked that the case be dismissed and said the department would not seek to retry Mr. Stevens.

The existence of discussions over a possible plea provides some insight into the case. Prosecutors did not charge Mr. Stevens with a more straightforward corruption count like bribery, which could have been harder to prove than what they charged him with, failing to file required disclosure forms.

But the prosecution apparently believed that it was important that Mr. Stevens acknowledge a felony to avoid a trial. For Mr. Stevens, such a plea would have raised a serious obstacle to his plans to return to the Senate, where he had been a member for 40 years.

Paul Minor’s Wife Dies Without Him

Source: Jackson Free Press in Jackson, Mississippi
April 14, 2009
By Adam Lynch

Also see: Dem At Your Own Risk

The wife of a possibly wrongfully convicted Mississippi attorney has died. Sylvia Minor, the wife of former attorney Paul Minor, died from brain cancer Monday night, former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz told the Jackson Free Press.

Minor, who is serving 11 years for judicial corruption, is appealing his conviction, arguing that the U.S. Justice Department under President George Bush pushed prosecutions against Democrat politicians and Democratic fundraisers like himself in an attempt to swing elections toward Republicans. A congressional committee is investigating whether former Bush administration Chief of Staff Karl Rove influenced the Justice Department under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, but Rove has repeatedly refused to answer questions from the committee under oath.

Minor had asked to be released on bond April 9 pending appeal, but 5th Circuit Court Judge Priscilla Owen, who had hired Rove as a campaign manager for $250,000 to help her in her run for Texas Supreme Court in 1994, refused to grant him a bond. The panel later upheld Owen’s decision—despite the fact that she later recused herself from the panel because of conflict-of-interest issues.

Minor's father, columnist Bill Minor, called the situation "senseless," because the court may ultimately uphold the appeal—but too late for Minor to be with his dying wife. "He should have been out on bond anyway, pending appeal," Minor said today.

A three-judge panel is currently reviewing Minor’s appeal and voicing questions about the irregular jury instructions granted by Reagan appointee U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate during Minor’s 2007 trial. Wingate, after presiding over the prosecution’s failed attempt to convict Minor in a 2005 corruption trial, instructed the jury in 2007 that they did not have to find any proof of a bribery in Minor’s corruption case.

One of the panel of three judges, Will Garwood, seemed doubtful that the prosecution had outlined no particular exchange of goods in the bribery case, as did Judge Catharina Haynes.

“All right. But you agree that there has to be some kind of agreement, OK; I’m going to give you money and you're going to rule in my favor on X in some way,” Haynes said. “[W]hat is your contention of what that agreement was? Because neither of these two cases (used to convict the defendants) that we have been presented were pending in front of those judges at that time as I understand it.”

The panel will decide on the appeal at an unspecified date.

Minor had recently asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to weigh in on his release request, although Holder had not responded as of her death, according to Minor's father.

“Paul tried everything he could to be with Sylvia in her last days,” said Diaz, a Democratic-leaning judge unsuccessfully prosecuted by U.S Attorney Dunn Lampton during the Minor trial, although Diaz never presided over any of Minor’s disputed cases. “We just wish their family well, and we’re sorry he couldn’t be with her.”

The panel told Minor last month that he could still petition the Federal Bureau of Prisons for a temporary release, although the bureau had allowed little humanity in Minor’s last petition. His last temporary release through the bureau’s generosity got him three hours with his wife in February.

Minor’s lawyer Hiram Eastland told the Jackson Free Press that Sylvia Minor drifted in and out of consciousness during that visit and said it was doubtful that she even remembered seeing her husband’s face. Minor's father said that, as of this morning, Paul Minor does not know whether he will be able to attend the funeral.

© Jackson Free Press, Inc.

Shortfalls Unraveled Stevens's Conviction; Observers Cite Prosecutors' Lack of Time, Other Reasons

Source: The Washington Post
April 12, 2009
By Carrie Johnson, Washington Post Staff Writer


The Justice Department team charged with prosecuting former senator Ted Stevens miscalculated by not seeking more time to prepare for the high-stakes corruption trial and fell victim to inexperience and thin staffing, which contributed to its alleged mishandling of witnesses and evidence, according to interviews with more than a dozen lawyers who followed the case.

Last year's compressed trial timeline forced government lawyers to jam their preparations into seven weeks and intensified a series of challenges: the late addition of a new lawyer; an aggressive adversary who deluged them with requests for documents; and a skeptical judge whose behavior turned unpredictable, then punitive.

The difficulties led U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan last week to dismiss a conviction against Stevens, a Republican who represented Alaska in the U.S. Senate for nearly 40 years, and to turn the tables and initiate a criminal probe of six of the prosecutors.

Former prosecutors, defense lawyers and onetime Justice Department officials also described more chronic liabilities in the department's Public Integrity Section: Once the "A Team" for fighting corruption in state legislatures, judges' chambers and Congress, the unit in recent years lost staffing, strong supervision, some of its varnish and its insulation from politics.

Only days after the case against Stevens collapsed, lawyers inside and outside the department were chronicling its demise and picking apart the skill of the prosecution team, at least one of whose members had watched cases fall apart in the past. But government officials and defense attorneys alike said they do not think that prosecutors in the Public Integrity Section or its leaders acted out of base political motivations.

The Justice Department, already laboring under well-documented episodes of political interference during the Bush years, is now facing intense scrutiny over whether it flouted the rules in one of the highest-profile cases of the past decade.

Prosecutors and FBI agents are hiring their own lawyers and pointing the finger at one another, even as a special prosecutor and the department's ethics watchdogs are trying to determine whether members of the team broke the law to cheat their way to victory or merely succumbed to lapses of incompetence, inexperience or lax supervision.

The six members of the prosecution team declined to comment or did not return phone calls and e-mail messages left with them and their friends. But department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said the unit has a solid record, having secured nearly 400 convictions since 2001.

"For more than 30 years, the Public Integrity Section has been effectively prosecuting public officials, regardless of political affiliation, who abuse their office and their obligation to the American people," Sweeney said. "Every day, in courtrooms nationwide, these prosecutors work under challenging circumstances to hold our public officials accountable for their conduct, and they will continue to do so."

The very nature of the section's mandate, to target corruption across the country, has posed recurrent challenges.

Former department attorneys, for example, cited chronic problems that have plagued the unit: competition and confusion with partner prosecutors in U.S. attorney's offices around the country. Federal prosecutors in the District, for instance, were consulted about the Stevens case starting in 2006 but declined to participate, thinking that the charges were shaky, according to sources familiar with the discussions. The assistant U.S. attorneys also considered overly aggressive the prosecutors' early plan, later abandoned, to get a warrant to search the lawmaker's D.C. area home, the sources said.

The government's path could have been eased had the U.S. attorney's office been part of the case, adding players who were familiar with the courthouse and the personality of the trial judge.

The Stevens case had been handled for years by Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke, two career lawyers from the U.S. attorney's office in Alaska, and two attorneys from the Public Integrity unit, Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan, whose prosecution of Alaska officials had led to charges that Stevens had failed to report gifts on his Senate ethics forms.

As the indictment loomed against Stevens last summer, authorities in the department's criminal division pondered whether to add a more magnetic courtroom presence to the team. Department officials decided to tap Brenda Morris, a feisty, sharp-tongued trial lawyer who had been serving as deputy chief of the Public Integrity Section, to put Stevens on the hot seat and to build rapport with the jury. But that required the other lawyers to spend hours schooling Morris on the nuances of the case, keeping them from tackling boxes of documents related to the case, according to sources close to the lawyers.

It was to be the most high-profile prosecution of Morris's career.

Four years earlier, Morris had run into trouble in a case she handled when a federal jury in Texas acquitted San Antonio criminal defense lawyer Alan Brown, who had been charged with tax offenses. In a subsequent civil suit filed by Brown, who alleged that FBI agents had wrongfully pursued him based on a sketchy account from his disgruntled secretary, the government ultimately paid Brown $1.34 million to settle the claim.

Brown and his lawyers say that Morris ignored warnings from local federal prosecutors who cast doubt on the credibility of a critical witness, an office assistant who peddled questionable information about Brown in a bid to win a reduction in the prison sentence of her boyfriend. A judge in San Antonio had thrown out the case before it went to trial, but an appeals court revived the prosecution, which Morris led.

"She is the race car driver who blew past the red flag," said Bill Reid, a lawyer for Brown in the civil wrongful prosecution case.

But last week, current and former colleagues of Morris defended her reputation and her ethics, saying they do not think that she would intentionally run afoul of the rules.

The Public Integrity Section has had five chiefs in six years. The latest is William M. Welch II, who was honored three years ago by the attorney general for exposing corruption in the Springfield, Mass., government. Welch, one of the six prosecutors now under investigation, did not play a major role in the courtroom during the Stevens case but took a more active posture after the judge raised questions about sharing evidence.

Indeed, during the presidential transition period, incoming Justice Department officials heard complaints about whether career lawyers properly understood their obligations to hand over materials to criminal defendants, prompting Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. last week to call for additional training and oversight. The Stevens case, perhaps the starkest example of the troubles, brought the severity of the problem into the national spotlight.

Former prosecutors described public corruption probes as particularly tricky. Defendants are used to seizing the stage, they generally have the money to pay for top-flight defense lawyers, and they do not hesitate to pick apart the inner workings of cases or to cast aspersions on the motives of prosecutors.

Others said the Stevens case, along with the acquittal of former Puerto Rican governor Anibal Acevedo Vilá (D) last month, exposed deeper problems with a lack of supervision of the Public Integrity Section, which has experienced heavy turnover.

"In high-profile cases, particularly cases involving public officials, the vetting process has fallen down," said Thomas C. Green, a Washington defense lawyer who won Vilá's acquittal. "I think what happens is that they get caught up in the competition and there's no experienced voice of reason who says we cannot do this, we should not do this, we must not do this. These two cases could not have happened if the vetting process was in place and operating as it should."

But Gerald E. McDowell, who ran the Public Integrity unit for a dozen years, said that supervisors typically do not "nitpick" the work of their subordinates because there is not enough time, given caseloads.

In the Stevens case, signs of frustration began emerging early. At one pretrial hearing, defense lawyers hammered prosecutors with requests to produce thousands of pages of electronic evidence. Morris became flustered. "Just because he has 'U.S. Senator' before his name doesn't mean we have to drink out of a fire hose every time they call us," she said in court.

In another unusual twist, the conduct of public corruption unit lawyers was questioned by Chad Joy, an FBI agent from the Anchorage office assigned to help with the trial. In a 10-page whistleblower complaint, Joy reported seeing boxes of unprocessed evidence stacked outside Marsh's D.C. office, asserted that Marsh had misplaced a piece of evidence and lodged more serious allegations about failure to turn over materials to the defense. The complaint became public after the trial, fueling calls by Stevens's lawyers to overturn the senator's conviction.

Among other issues, Joy chronicled internal battles among the prosecutors about whether to turn over notes and argued that lawyers had delegated to his colleague, FBI case agent Mary Beth Kepner, the task of going over interview notes and deciding what should be redacted before handing the papers to the defense team.

Current and former prosecutors said it is highly unusual to delegate that task to an FBI agent because it involves legal questions and sensitive judgment calls for which prosecutors ultimately will be held responsible.

Compared with other Justice Department lawyers, those in the Public Integrity Section generally have been stingier about turning over materials to defense lawyers, former department attorneys said, and the section lacked clear rules on the question. It was a more difficult question in the Stevens case, with much of the evidence 4,000 miles away in Alaska.

One of the key questions now for ethics investigators and Henry F. Schuelke III, the special prosecutor appointed by the trial judge, revolves around a mid-April 2008 interview of the government's key witness, Bill Allen. Notes from that meeting in Alaska were uncovered earlier this month by the new Justice Department team examining the case, raising fresh questions about inconsistencies in Allen's trial testimony and prompting Holder to abandon the conviction.

"I always want to ensure . . . that if we make mistakes that we admit them, and that we then take the appropriate action," Holder said Thursday.

But, in a fashion befitting the strange and troubled course of the Stevens case, the people who are now the subject of "appropriate action" by authorities are the half-dozen men and women who prosecuted him.

Staff writer Del Quentin Wilber and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Paul Minor Denied Release by 5th Circuit and Justice Department

Source: HUFFINGTON POST
April 10, 2009
Brendan DeMelle

Justice Department officials told the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday that the government opposes the release of Paul Minor, the prominent Mississippi trial attorney currently serving 11 years in prison following his selective prosecution by the Bush DOJ. The 5th Circuit moved quickly to deny Minor's motion for release.

Minor remains locked up in the Pensacola Federal Prison Camp while his wife Sylvia's condition continues to deteriorate. "Her demise is imminent," according to an April 4 report from the oncologist monitoring the progression of her terminal brain cancer.

The wording of the 5th Circuit Court's denial does offer a ray of hope that the two might be reunited, but only if the Obama Justice Department moves quickly to support his emergency furlough. The 5th Circuit response indicates that the judges deliberating Minor's appeal agree that he meets the requirements necessary for a temporary furlough. Different from the release on bail that Minor requested, a temporary furlough could be granted for a period of up to 30 days, allowing Minor to spend time with his dying spouse and to say goodbye in a dignified manner.

The Bureau of Prisons and the Warden could grant a brief furlough for a bedside visit with an armed guard, if deemed necessary. With any luck, the BOP and Warden will allow Minor an extended visit to love and comfort his wife and family under the 30 day furlough statute. Any sense of human decency requires no less - especially when there are substantial questions raised in Mr. Minor's appeal that will likely require reversal of his conviction.

Curiously, the 5th Circuit judges based their denial of Minor's release on Judge Priscilla Owen's previous denial last year of Minor's request for release pending his appeal. Judge Owen recused herself from Minor's case minutes before the appeal hearing began last week in Austin, Texas.

Owen's recusal was appropriate given her close ties to Karl Rove, who is currently under investigation by the House Judiciary Committee for allegedly targeting key Democrats for prosecution, including Paul Minor, and for his role in the ousting of U.S. attorneys who refused to carry out the partisan bidding of the Bush administration.

Rove was reportedly "very impressed" with Priscilla Owen's judicial philosophy when the two met in 1994, and he agreed to shepherd her onto the Texas Supreme Court, collecting nearly a quarter million dollars in fees in the process. Ever since then, according to The New York Times, Priscilla Owen has been "guided by the hand of Karl Rove."

In the Texas Supreme Court race, Rove helped Owen amass a war chest of over $926,000 in campaign contributions from Big Business and the ranks of the Texas GOP. Owen then obliged some of her biggest donors by ruling favorably on their lawsuits with amazing consistency. The watchdog group Texans For Public Justice reported "more than $500,000 (37 percent) of the $1.4 million that Owen raised for her two Supreme Court campaigns came from lawyers and litigants who had cases in her courtroom... Owen's 11 biggest litigant-donors (including Enron Corp., Farmers Insurance and Dow Chemical) appeared in her courtroom 26 times. While these big docket donors prevailed an enviable 77 percent of the time before the court as a whole, Owen was even kinder - favoring them 85 percent of the time."

(Ironically, prior to her election to the Court, Priscilla Owen wrote articles and lobbied the Texas Legislature to eliminate partisan election of judges, arguing that they hinder the ability of courts to provide impartial justice.)

A member of the ultra-conservative Federalist Society, Judge Owen was finally appointed to the 5th Circuit Court by George W. Bush in 2005. Congress blocked her first nomination in 2003. A contemporary New York Times editorial stated that Judge Owen's "ideology drives her decisions," and that her nomination was "not by chance," because the Bush White House sought out judges like Owen for their "aggressive conservative agendas."

Another editorial from Owen's hometown newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, chastised her "clear preference for ruling to achieve a particular result rather than impartially interpreting the law."

A 2005 New York Times article characterized Owens' nomination as "the latest reward of a partnership that began a dozen years ago when a prominent Texas conservative introduced her to Karl Rove, who was at the time a political consultant and emerging kingmaker."

According to the Times article, "Ms. Owen, Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove became close friends. Each year, Ms. Owen cooked a dinner of quail, a Texas specialty, for Mr. Bush, Laura Bush and other judges on the court, usually at Mr. Rove's home."

Given the near certainty that Rove was the chief strategist behind the Bush Justice Department's targeted prosecutions of Democratic fundraisers including Paul Minor, Owen's impartiality in hearing Minor's appeal was questionable, and she was correct to recuse herself. Why the 5th Circuit panel is relying on Owen's previous denial of Minor's release to deny him bail now is mystifying.

The Obama Justice Department should move quickly to review the circumstances of Minor's conviction. More immediately, given Mrs. Minor's condition, DOJ should grant Paul Minor an emergency furlough to say goodbye to his wife Sylvia.

Mr. Holder and the Ted Stevens Case--Editorial

Source: The New York Times, nytimes.com
April 3, 2009

For eight years the Bush Justice Department cynically put politics and ideology above the law. So it is gratifying to see how Attorney General Eric Holder is handling the case against Ted Stevens, the former Alaska senator who was convicted last year on seven felony counts of ethics violations.

Mr. Holder announced this week that he would ask a judge to drop all charges against Mr. Stevens, a Republican, because of prosecutorial misconduct. Mr. Holder should ensure that the Justice Department gets to the bottom of what went wrong and subject other cases that have raised red flags to similar scrutiny.

Mr. Stevens was convicted of making false statements on Senate disclosure forms to hide an estimated $250,000 in home renovations and gifts, many from Bill Allen, an old friend with close ties to his state’s oil industry. The Justice Department says that prosecutors failed to turn over to the defense notes from an interview with Mr. Allen, a prime witness in the case, which conflicted with parts of his trial testimony.

Prosecutors are legally required to turn over evidence in their possession that would help a defendant prove his innocence. This revelation is only the latest in a series of instances in which Mr. Stevens’s prosecutors appear to have acted wrongly.

The prosecutors’ bad acts do not necessarily mean that Mr. Stevens was innocent of misusing his office. But in light of the prosecutorial wrongdoing, and the fact that Mr. Stevens lost his Senate seat last November, Mr. Holder was right not to choose to retry the case.

Mr. Holder, whose department is continuing to investigate the Stevens prosecution, now needs to determine whether the prosecutors’ conduct was so egregious that they should face their own ethics charges.

He should not stop with this case. Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama, and Paul Minor, a prominent Mississippi trial lawyer, have charged that Justice Department prosecutors engaged in unethical behavior in cases that led to their convictions. Both men claim that they were singled out for prosecution because of their affiliation with the Democratic Party.

Given the flagrant partisanship of the Bush Justice Department, it is especially reassuring to see Mr. Holder ignore party lines to do the right thing by Mr. Stevens. It has been far too long since the attorney general seemed interested in enforcing ethics and nonpartisanship in a department that has been shockingly lacking in both.