The Judge DID order prosecutors to give up exculpatory evidence in the Stevens trial

In a recent post and in an article in Lewrockwell.com, I noted that the special prosecutor had recommended that prosecutors NOT be charged with criminal contempt because the trial judge supposedly did not order prosecutors to turn over exculpatory material to the defense.

However, Jim Morhard, a former Senate Appropriations Committee chief of staff, writes in the Wall Street Journal that as someone who attended the trial regularly, he observed that "Judge (Emmet) Sullivan continually direct(ed) the prosecution to reveal exculpatory evidence to the defense after they had been caught repeatedly not doing so." In other words, Sullivan DID order the prosecutors to obey the law and prosecutors openly and arrogantly refused to do so.

Special Prosecutor Henry F. Schuelke III did leave open the possibility of charging the Stevens prosecutors with "obstruction of justice," but I doubt seriously that the Department of Justice (sic) will charge its own, especially since their actions paved the way for the Democrats to have the filibuster-proof 60 members in the U.S. Senate, which was crucial for President Barack Obama to push through much of his legislative agenda during a two-year window, including "Obamacare." With prosecutors doing important dirty work for the Democratic Party, I don't think that they will be punished for doing what prosecutors everywhere do.

Furthermore, if prosecutors in the Stevens case are charged with any crimes, one can bet that their defense will be based upon the "everybody does it" line, and a lot of outright criminal dirty laundry will be aired in the courtroom, and if there is anything government bureaucrats don't like, it is having their evil and illegal deeds exposed. No, I am sure that the DOJ will announce that while the prosecutors behaved badly and that they have been "punished" internally, the government believes that pursuing criminal charges will be "counterproductive" and that the individuals "have been punished enough" by having their reputations tarnished.

To put it another way, the government is going to argue that while its crack prosecution team broke the law like other "criminals" in this country, prosecutors are of a very sensitive and honest lot and simply shaming them is all that is needed. However, for those people who are not employed by the DO(In)J, you don't have the privilege of breaking the law and staying out of trouble. In fact, you don't even have to break the law in order to go to prison, as federal prosecutors are masters at taking legal actions and turning them in to "crimes."

Judges and Prosecutors: Law for thee, but not for me

The long-awaited report on prosecutorial misconduct in the case of the late Ted Stevens has been released and it unwittingly declares that federal bureaucrats -- and especially those at the U.S. Department of "Justice" (sic) -- are not required to obey the law if they are not specifically told they have to obey the law. Chew on that for a while, folks.

According to the New York Times:

...the 500-page report by the investigator, Henry F. Schuelke, recommends that none of the Justice Department officials involved in the case be prosecuted for criminal contempt of court because the judge who presided over the trial, Emmet G. Sullivan, of Federal District Court in Washington, did not issue an order specifically instructing prosecutors to obey the law by turning over any exculpatory evidence. (emphasis mine)

The report admitted the prosecution was “permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated his defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government’s key witness.” In other words, the Brady violations -- and these clearly fell into the Brady category -- were deliberate. Prosecutors wanted a conviction and were willing to lie to get it.

All of the prosecutors are regularly briefed during mandatory training about Brady requirements of turning over all exculpatory evidence and sharing files. As law school graduates, they also had Brady instruction in classes on criminal law. To put it another way, they did NOT have to be instructed in the requirements of Brady; they already knew, but chose NOT to obey.

This is breathtaking, but maybe I should not be surprised that Official Washington is so contemptuous of everyone else but themselves. The courts have ruled that you and I (if we are not government lawyers or judges) are required to know by heart every jot and tittle of the law, for the courts have declared, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

In this situation, however, they are not even saying that prosecutors were ignorant of the law. Instead, the judge who wrote the report is saying that because prosecutors were not reminded of what they already were supposed to know, they should not face criminal contempt charges.

What about the rest of us. Well, the courts have ruled that under federal law, the mens rea doctrine -- the people charged with crimes intended to break the law -- can be ignored, which means that you can I can go to prison for breaking laws we did not know existed AND even though we did not intend to break the law and might have thought we were obeying it.

Yet, prosecutors who knowingly lied and hid evidence, prosecutors who are regularly briefed and trained in the law, do not have to obey it, or at least do not have to worry about being charged with lawbreaking as long as a judge does not remind them of what they already know. This is the very definition of tyranny.