AG Holder Indicts . . . the Justice Department!
Statement of Attorney General Eric Holder
Regarding United States V. Theodore F. Stevens
In connection with the post-trial litigation in United States v. Theodore F. Stevens, the Department of Justice has conducted a review of the case, including an examination of the extent of the disclosures provided to the defendant. After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial. 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.The Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility will conduct a thorough review of the prosecution of this matter. 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.
The Department of Justice must always ensure that any case in which it is involved is handled fairly and consistent with its commitment to justice. Under oftentimes trying conditions, the attorneys who serve in this Department live up to those principles on a daily basis. I am proud of them and of the work they do for the American people.
The other day, with his decision to drop the indictment against former Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), Attorney General Eric Holder asserted his authority over the Department of Justice in a way that indicates he will guide the department out of the swamp where it has wallowed for many years. It’s a meaningful decision in a variety of ways.
First, the AG could have simply gone to a new trial and cured the defects of the prosecutors in the initial case, such as their withholding of important evidence from Stevens’ attorneys regarding a key witness’s statements. However, Holder decided that the “totality of circumstances” warranted decisive action:
Government’s Motion: “Given the facts of this particular case, the Government believes that granting a new trial is in the interest of justice. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). The Government has further determined that, based on the totality of circumstances and in the interest of justice, it will not seek a new trial. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a), the Government moves to set aside the verdict and dismiss the indictment . . .”
Second, with this decision holder sends a signal to the Department of Justice that the AG’s office is now a “hands on” operation, one that will insist upon prosecutorial standards of high caliber. Holder seems to be saying that political appointees will no longer send signals to the non-political appointee career prosecutors that laxness, or outright malfeasance, will be tolerated. Say what one will about Ted Stevens, for example, but he was entitled to a fair trial and the withholding of the important evidence that Holder mentions in his motion to the court would surely have influenced the outcome.
Third, by dismissing the charges against Mr. Stevens rather than pursuing a new, perfected, trial, Mr. Holder displays an admirable sense of justice and an ability to weigh the “totality of circumstances.” Mr. Stevens, at 85 years old, although still cantankerous as ever, deserves a break, especially since the wrongdoing of the prosecutors was so egregious. Holder does justice here in the best sense of the word.
Finally, it’s my hope that the forthrightness demonstrated by Mr. Holder will permeate the department and lead inexorably to investigations regarding allegations of Bush era wrongdoing in many areas, including domestic spying, politicizing the Department of Justice, and human rights abuses too numerous to chronicle.
Mr. Holder, what is good for Ted Stevens is good for America.
