D.C. Bar Counsel v. Paul Howes: Day 3

At this point in the G. Paul Howes ethics hearing, even a lowly LT reporter knows how to properly fill out a witness voucher. But since the launch of the defense’s case yesterday afternoon, Howes’ attorney Paul Knight has been trying to show that the rules for witness vouchers at the time of the alleged misconduct were vague at best.

Defense witness, David Schertler of Schertler & Onorato, stressed that during that time period witness vouchers were a very “minor part of the job” and added that he was “somewhat embarrassed” by having no prior knowledge of the statute governing witness vouchers even after serving for several years as chief of the Homicide Section in the U.S. Attorneys Office. Another defense witness, Alan Strasser, who was a former assistant U.S. attorney, lamented that “it was a constant source of dismay” to him that assistants were not given formal training on almost anything including vouchers.

But Deputy Bar Counsel Elizabeth Herman countered by asking the defense witnesses if they would give vouchers to incarcerated witnesses or to witnesses who had no connections to an investigation. Not a one answered yes.

The afternoon highlights included testimony by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the now-retired U.S. District Court Judge for D.C. who heard the Newton Street Gang cases, and Howes himself.

In a booming bass voice, Jackson talked up Howes, saying he was an “exceptionally competent lawyer,” and he explained the reasons why he recused himself from the Newton Street case after allegations of prosecutorial misconduct were brought forward. “I was absolutely convinced that those defendants received a fair trial,” he said, citing that as one of the reasons why he couldn’t fairly preside over another trial. He also added that without Howes there to retry the case, he didn’t think the government would have as good a chance.

Howes, who was on the witness stand for an hour and a half this afternoon, spoke at length about his work as a prosecutor during the late 80s and early 90s, detailing the long hours, the intensive interviewing, and the violence plaguing the District. In response to Knight’s questions about his handling of witness vouchers, he said, “I did not do a good job.”

But Howes had it easy this afternoon. Tomorrow he has Herman’s cross examination to contend with. Stay tuned.

Comments

[brus]

You have an outstanding good and well structured site. I enjoyed browsing through it.u

[asdf]

Thank you very much.l

[Fair and Balanced]

Not only has LT failed to cover this story in an unbiased manner (for several years, not just on this blog), you don't get the purpose of the proceeding. You've said nothing about the exhibits offered by Mr. Howes; nothing about his witnesses (his former supervisors, two highly-respected former Federal Judges, detectives who worked on the Newton Street and Card investigations); and acted as if all of these allegations have already been proven by clear and convincing evidence (which is highly disputed). You've ignored the facts and testimony that the Justice Dept. never had a policy on vouchers; never trained on vouchers; still doesn't have a policy and still doesn't train on vouchers. The way Legal Times has covered this, you would think the Justice Dept has some huge training program with Mr. Howes's picture with a giant X over it screaming "Don't be Paul Howes!" Well, they don't. This proceeding is a perfect example why there should be such a thing as a Statute of Limitations. Count me as a former subscriber.

[Ridiculous!]

Why are you bothering to cover this story at all? Your work on this story to date leaves me with the impression that all LT Reporters are "lowly". You don't even attempt to report both sides to the controversy. In the 90 minutes of testimony from Howes, the only quote you got down was "I did not do a good job."?? "Stayed Tuned" says it all. This is not a cliff hanger or a soap opera. These are serious charges brought against an attorney with an excellent reputation. He hasn't practiced here in years, but when he did, he did well. He was well-respected in his office and in the District. Either do a little research or add a sound track. This is shoddy reporting and rather more than obviously biased. Is Ms. Herman a relative, Attila? Or are you just hoping to garner favor with her office? Maybe then you could just ask for her notes and you wouldn't have to attend all these dull hearings. What is the point if you aren't going to report both sides of the story?