UPDATED 1 p.m.
Justice Department lawyers this morning filed court papers asking a federal judge in the District to dismiss all charges against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, convicted in October for providing false statements on Senate financial disclosure forms.
In a two-page motion filed this morning, Justice lawyers say they found a previously undisclosed interview with Bill Allen, the government's chief witness against Stevens. Stevens steadfastly maintained his innocence before, during, and after the month-long trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Allen, former owner of VECO, the oil pipeline services company in Alaska, told two prosecutors and federal agents in an April 2008 interview that the fair market value for work at the Stevens home would have been $80,000. Stevens was accused of failing to disclose more than $250,000 in home repairs and gifts from Allen and friends. Stevens' lawyers say he paid for all work for which he received bills. In total, the newly discovered information undercuts Allen's credibility.
"After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial," Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. said in a statement this morning. "In light of this conclusion, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case, I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial."
Stevens and his lawyers at Williams & Connolly were never told about the April 2008 interview. The FBI did not prepare a memo of the interview, according to the court papers.
Justice lawyers discovered the interview—two prosecutors who participated in the interview took notes—as they dug for information to defend allegations of prosecution misconduct. A status hearing had been set for April 15. The names of the two prosecutors are not identified in court papers.
Justice lawyers Paul O'Brien, David Jaffe, and William Stuckwisch say in the court papers filed today that Stevens deserves a new trial. But the Justice Department has no intent to refile the case "based on the totality of the circumstances and in the interest of justice," according to the Justice lawyers. "Accordingly ... the government moves to set aside the verdict and dismiss the indictment with prejudice," the lawyers wrote.
O'Brien, Jaffe, and Stuckwisch were brought in to the Stevens case earlier this year to litigate post-trial motions alleging prosecution and FBI misconduct in the Stevens case. An FBI agent in December filed a whistleblower complaint alleging an FBI agent had an inappropriate relationship with Bill Allen and that prosecutors attempted to hide exculpatory evidence from Stevens' lawyers.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan scolded the prosecution several times during trial for what he deemed were intentional acts to hide evidence from Stevens' defense, led by Williams & Connolly partner Brendan Sullivan Jr.
Sullivan in February ordered three prosecutors held in contempt for failing to follow two court orders to produce records to the defense. The contempt finding was directed at William Welch II, chief of DOJ's Public Integrity Section; Brenda Morris, principal deputy chief of the section and lead prosecutor in the case; and Patricia Stemler, chief of the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section. Sullivan has not announced how he will sanction the lawyers.
There is an ongoing Office of Professional Responsibility investigation stemming from allegations of prosecution misconduct during and after the trial. Jaffe, O'Brien, and Stuckwisch say in court papers Justice will share the findings of the OPR investigation with the court.
"The Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility will conduct a thorough review of the prosecution of this matter," Holder said in the statement. "This does not mean or imply that any determination has been made about the conduct of those attorneys who handled the investigation and trial of this case."
UPDATE 10:15 a.m.
Stevens' lawyers at Williams & Connolly just issued a statement saying they are "grateful" that the Justice Department is dismissing the case and setting aside the verdict. In a sternly worded three-page letter, the lawyers say the verdict was obtained unlawfully; the lawyers are urging a full accounting of alleged prosecution misdeeds.
"The misconduct of government prosecutors, and one or more FBI agents, was stunning. Not only did the government fail to disclose evidence of innocence, but instead intentionally hid that evidence and created false evidence that they provided to the defense," the Williams & Connolly statement said.
A copy of the full statement is here.
UPDATE 10:40 a.m.
Judge Sullivan plans to hold a hearing in the Stevens case next Tuesday at 10 a.m.
UPDATE 1 p.m.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, applauded Holder in a statement, saying "he is committed to the rule of law, regardless of politics."
"Public confidence in our justice system and in the Department of Justice can only be preserved when prosecutors adhere to the most stringent legal and ethical standards," Leahy said in the statement. "This decision should give all Americans confidence that the Justice Department will pursue public corruption investigations and prosecutions aggressively but fairly."
Maybe some paid to get Stevens off at all cost(one poster surmised the opposite),yet, how many guys have 13 attorneys repping for him from the most expensive, high powered D C law firm ?
Also, how often to you see an FBI guy rat out some other FBI agent, claiming, or setting up some suggestion she was having sex, because she was in a motel room, maybe refreshing recollections of the main witness for the Government ? Wacko, or what ?
Most curiously, the two FBI agents at the center of this stuning turn of events, to toss the Stevens conviction, never testifed at the Stevens trial. Certainly, questions on the FBI agents handling of matters will linger on(Bush Admin oversaw the matters, & why did no FBI agent testify on the cost aspects of the A -Frame house as build, as additons for Stevens, that is puzzling indeed, given the house additions were the basis for some supposed big gift to Stevens(compared to any checks he wrote, in the full picture of events.)
Stevens picked out a man to run the add on show for his house, who just happened to be a major criminal in Alaksa, Allen, and AG Eric Holder giving Stevens a pass,(upsetting a jury verdict) does not shove under the rug major lingering questions, which are not going to just go away. That was assured in view of all the fuss matters have caused, and Congress(some in Senate) cheering for the TED pass, missed the larger point in matters.
Ted at age 85 may enjoy his old age, not from rotting in a prison, but the questions on the U S justice system and how it handles the powerful has only risen to more pressing and urgent issues, not to be ignored.
Posted by: Marcus | April 08, 2009 at 04:56 PM
Why would Ted Stevens pick the main criminal in Alaska to run the building of his house additions, when there are many honest contractors in Alaksa, have any pondered that question, including Mr O'Brien of the DOJ Narcotics section--Mr sub for the DOJ political agenda ?
He filed a motion to dismiss the jury conviction of Ted Stevens, but his irrational motion raised more questions than it answered.
Was Allen lying to protect Stevens in April of 2008, so how can that be an innocent thing,(proof of Stevens innocence) since they were good buddies, and other evidence showed big cost numbers well above $ 80,000.
And, the Bush DOJ was running the show in 2008, so why were 4 DOJ attorneys so inept that they never asked about the whole way costs run through an account(Girdwood Stevens' property), and why the job ledger showed $ 100,000 higher than noted in the interview, none of which is an exoneration statement as to Stevens, but a use of a convicted criminal to game the system and play the DOJ as suckers, real dopes, gullible, like babes to be conned.
If Mr O'Brien, playing some DOJ politics for Eric Holder, & wants to claim some exoneration evidence for Stevens, it is a sad day, when the whole picture is ignored, like this is some game for the white collar D C bar,(which Holder is so entrenched in) to jive the U S justice system around(Marc Rich style) for the powerful, and the abusers to game the system. That makes a mockery of justice, and it is not going to fly, as more comes out.
Posted by: Mitch | April 06, 2009 at 03:20 PM
I can't get over Senator Leahy's comment that this should make people confident in the system. To me this is just another terrifying example of the power held by prosecutors and law enforcement. If it turns out that the allegations of misconduct are true, then the DOJ attorneys and FBI agents should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law which they so callously disregarded.
Posted by: Chris | April 02, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Why would a prosecutor commit the crimes of withholding evidence and sending a witness away? Was it political or someone trying to get ahead. Could these individuals be paid by someone to get Senator Stevens at all cost?
Posted by: troup | April 01, 2009 at 05:24 PM
In a local Public Radio interview last winter, I heard a former U.S. Attorney for Alaska say several times he was "shocked" by the allegations contained the the FBI whistle-blower's complaint. He then said it seemed possible FBI agents and/or federal attorneys could be spending time in jail.
On one hand, I hope justice will be rendered for those who ruined Ted Stevens a man who has clearly done his best to do what he thought was right.
On the other hand, I wonder if it's possible to provide due restitution for the man who was wrongly convicted, who lost his re-election bid to the Senate as a result, and whose reputation has been irreparably damaged.
If this is more of a political issue than a legal issue, what can and should the politicians do now?
//Don K. of Anchorage
Posted by: Don Karabelnikoff | April 01, 2009 at 03:42 PM
Ok, so let's just sweep this mess under the rug so that nobody sees just how misguided and unethical the line and senior prosecutors in this case behaved. NOT! The criminal case will be dismissed but I hope the contempt trial proceed and an disbarment investigation commence.
Posted by: Witheld | April 01, 2009 at 11:27 AM