Showing posts with label John Stevens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Stevens. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

FORMER PROSECUTORS DEMAND THAT DOJ STOP "HIDING THE BALL" - IMMEDIATE RELEASE - J. FLANNERY


THE DOJ TEAM THAT WRONGLY PROSECUTED STEVENS

After the lying and withholding of exculpatory evidence in many federal prosecutions, the Stevens prosecution being just one recent illustration of this unfortunate truth, we have enlisted a spectrum of former prosecutors, white house counsel, noted authors, and members of congress from across the political spectrum to demand federal legislation to put an end to this misconduct.

More than 125 lawyers signed a letter urging Congress to take up criminal discovery reform and do something about it. 

The signatories included former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, author and SNR Denton partner Scott Turow, lead Stevens defense counsel Brendan Sullivan Jr. of Williams & Connolly, former US Attorney and Congressman Bob Barr, former White House Counsel Gregory B. Craig, former DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson, ATR President Grover Norquist, former Appellate Judge H. Lee Sarokin, and former federal prosecutor and Capitol Hill Judiciary Committee Special Counsel John P. Flannery.

"Our experience leads us to believe that the vast majority of prosecutors act in good faith to fulfill their constitutional and legal obligations," the joint letter said.

"However, federal courts, the DOJ and other entities have for years articulated inconsistent, shifting, and sometimes contradictory standards for criminal discovery, leaving it up to individual prosecutors to navigate this legal maze and determine the scope of their obligations to disclose information."

Yesterday, Hank Schuelke, who Judge Emmet Sullivan appointed to investigate allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in Senator Stevens’s case, testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.  

Much of the initial questioning concerned Mr. Schuelke’s findings about what occurred in the case and how the improperly withheld information could have affected the case’s outcome. 

However, the issue of legislative reform did arise, as well. 

Asked whether Congress should intervene to reform federal criminal discovery, Schuelke replied that the Congress should eliminate the materiality requirement so that in a pretrial setting, prosecutors would be required to disclose any information that is favorable to the accused, regardless of materiality. 

Schuelke acknowledged that the bill introduced on March 15th by Senator Murkowski (R-AK), the fairness in disclosure act, includes such a requirement; the text of that bill is found at the enclosed link - http://sdfla.blogspot.com/2012/03/fairness-in-disclosure-of-evidence-act.html .  

It closely mirrors the legislative reforms that our statement endorses.

The DOJ did submit a statement prior to the hearing expressing their opposition to any legislation reforming criminal discovery practices.  

This is a good example of how you can't teach an old dog new tricks - like fundamental fairness.  The DOJ can't really say they are doing the right thing now - or we wouldn't have these disclosures of misconduct and the clean up afterwards of dismissals and punished assistants.

When asked about the DOJ’s objections, Schuelke stated, “If the Department believes that there should be no pretrial materiality standard -- because that’s what they’re telling their prosecutors now to do --what is the principled reason for opposing legislation that does just that?”

Here is a link to the full hearing if you are interested: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/StevensP .

Thursday, July 28, 2011

GAZETTE COLUMN: MANIPULATE LOUDOUN! by John P. Flannery

What School is supposed to be about.
_____________________
There’s a relatively new group in town.
They call themselves “Educate Loudoun!”
Now doesn’t that sound arrogant?
These folk are going to “educate” us about what we want and need in Loudoun County.
This Johnny-come-lately group sprung into existence at the sound of the first spring peepers – and now they presume to commend who should be our school board members in the upcoming election.
They say they are a political action committee (“PAC”) that’s going to contribute to right-thinking candidates.
The blogs are alive with the sound of gossip about this group and the message is clear - Caveat Voter!
Let’s deconstruct this group and find out what makes it tick
It was founded by the current School Board Chairman, John Stevens (Potomac), who no doubt expects to be endorsed by the PAC he created when he announces, any day now, to succeed himself. 
Another founder, who has underwritten this group, is Telos, a hi-tech government contractor.  I want Telos to tell us how it hopes to “help” us.  Telos’ CEO John Wood has contributed about a third of the funds, at $5,000, that make up the PAC’s war chest. 
On their web site, Mr. Wood explains that he sees our educational system as “a catalyst of economic growth,” that shall encourage families “to move here and stay here,” because of the “long term investment” that “Educate!” reportedly supports, meaning an accelerated building development of even more schools than presently scheduled. 
In other words, they prefer that hard-earned and scant tax payer money from our property assessments underwrite infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, etc.) favoring even more development in a county struggling to recover the home asset value we’ve lost in the ongoing recession.  Overdevelopment can only dilute our most important asset, the value of our homes.
One commentator, Erv Addison, wrote a recent letter, stating that he might support this group if they meant charter schools when they said “new public school choices for all families.”    
When Mr. Addison asked “Educate!” what they really supported, he learned that the “Educate!” founders couldn’t agree.  Nor could they say whether they were for performance pay for teachers.  I would oppose the group if they support charter schools or performance pay.  But neither of us can dispel the group’s enforced “ambiguity and uncertainty” - as Mr. Addison aptly described their stonewalling practices.
Mr. Wood claimed he suffered no disqualifying conflict of interest in advancing this group, not while Telos employee, Robert Dupree, was a school board member (indeed, the Chairman), nor now while Telos employee, Ralph Buona, is a Republican candidate for the Board of Supervisors.
County-wide, Telos and Mr. Wood personally have contributed a total of $7,050.00 (on 10/23/10, and on 3/31/11) to Scott York’s campaign coffers.  That contribution is 15% of York’s entire fund-raising effort.  (Interestingly, Mr. Wood’s contribution bore an Illinois home address.  Tell us John that you’re a Loudoun resident (and this is some oversight)). See Campaign Report - http://inter4.loudoun.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=344&fmpath=/Electoral%20Board/2010%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reports.
Incidentally, it appears that, on the same day, March 29, 2011, that Telos contributed $213.18 in catering costs, Mr. York received an additional $6,150.00 in checks dated that same day from, among others, William Hazel, the Lansdowne Development Group, and the Virginia Investment Partnership.  Did you host a fund-raiser, John, in order to impress upon Mr. York your concern about education?
Telos won’t tell us plainly what they really want.  But it appears that it’s about asphalt and development rather than much having to do with educating our young.  Voters and candidates would be well advised to steer clear of this group.