Stevens Off The Hook, But Not Prosecutors

Federal Judge Dismisses Corruption Charges Against Ex-Alaska Senator, Opens Criminal Probe Of Prosecutors' Conduct

(CBS/AP)  A seething federal judge dismissed the corruption conviction of former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens on Tuesday and took the rare and serious step of ordering a criminal investigation into prosecutors who poisoned the case.

"In nearly 25 years on the bench, I've never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case," U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said.

Sullivan appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Justice Department lawyers who repeatedly withheld evidence from defense attorneys and the judge during the monthlong trial. Stevens was convicted in October of lying on Senate forms about home renovations and gifts he received from wealthy friends.

"Judges don’t suffer deceit gladly and federal judges in particularly don’t like it when they, or defense attorneys, are lied to by government attorneys," writes CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. (Read Cohen's complete analysis.)

The case cost Stevens, 85, a Senate seat he had held for 40 years. Once the Senate's longest-serving Republican, he narrowly lost to Democrat Mark Begich soon after the verdict.

Now, the case could prove career-ending for prosecutors in the Justice Department's public corruption unit.

"I think what is most shocking about this are the allegations that these prosecutors or the people who work for them may have absolutely fabricated evidence which is an order of magnitude worse than simply not turning over certain documents," Cohen said.

Upon hearing the charges dismissed, the combative ex-senator - known for his "Incredible Hulk" necktie - raised a fist in celebration as his wife and daughters began to cry, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.

"Until recently, my faith in the criminal system, particularly the judicial system, was unwavering," Stevens told the court Tuesday, his first public comments since Attorney General Eric Holder announced he would drop the case. "But what some members of the prosecution team did nearly destroyed my faith. Their conduct had consequences for me that they will never realize and can never be reversed."

The unraveling of the case overshadowed the facts of a trial in which Stevens was shown to have accepted thousands of dollars in undisclosed gifts.

Sullivan appointed Washington attorney Henry Schuelke to investigate contempt and obstruction by the Justice Department team. Schuelke is a former prosecutor and veteran defense attorney who oversaw a Senate Ethics Committee investigation into influence-peddling allegations against former New York Sen. Alfonse D'Amato in 1989.

The Justice Department has already launched its own investigation of the prosecutors. But the judge made it perfectly clear he doesn't trust the government alone to reach a timely and fair conclusion, reports Orr.

Sullivan criticized former Attorney General Michael Mukasey for not responding to complaints: "Shocking, but not surprising," Sullivan said.

He worried aloud about how often prosecutors withhold evidence, from Guantanamo Bay terrorism cases to public corruption trials. He called on Holder to retrain all prosecutors in the department.

The decision to open a criminal case raises the question of whether the prosecutors, who include top officials in the department's public corruption unit, can remain on the job while under investigation. The investigation carries the threat of prison time, fines and disbarment.

It also threatens to derail the investigation into other public officials, including Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who has been under scrutiny by the same prosecutors now being investigated. Young's lawyer attended Tuesday's hearing but said nothing after it ended.

Subjects of the criminal probe are lead prosecutor Brenda Morris, the department's No. 2 corruption official and an instructor within the department; Public Integrity prosecutors Nicholas Marsh and Edward Sullivan; Alaska federal prosecutors Joseph Bottini and James Goeke; and William Welch, who did not participate in the trial but who supervises the Public Integrity section and has overseen every major public corruption case in recent years.

Judge Sullivan repeatedly scolded prosecutors for their behavior during trial. After the verdict, an FBI whistleblower accused the team of misconduct and Sullivan held prosecutors in contempt for ignoring a court order.

The prosecution team was replaced and, last week, the new team acknowledged that key evidence was withheld. That included notes from an interview with the government's star witness, contractor Bill Allen.

On the witness stand, Allen said a mutual friend told him not to expect payment for Stevens' home renovations because the senator only wanted the bill to cover himself. It was damaging testimony that made Stevens look like a scheming politician trying to conceal his freebies.

But in the previously undisclosed meeting with prosecutors, Allen had no recollection of such a discussion. And he valued the renovation work at far less than what prosecutors alleged at the trial.

"I was sick in my stomach," attorney Brendan Sullivan said Tuesday, recalling seeing the new evidence for the first time. "How could they do this? How could they abandon their responsibilities? How could they take on a very decent man, Ted Stevens, who happened to be a United States senator, and do this?"

The Justice Department did not comment after court and the prosecutors under investigation either declined comment or did not respond to messages. But Paul O'Brien, a federal prosecutor newly assigned to the case, apologized to the judge on behalf of the department.

Despite the prosecutorial misconduct, the trial revealed that Stevens - regardless of Allen's discredited testimony - accepted a massage chair, a stained-glass window and an expensive sculpture but never disclosed them on Senate documents.

None of that mattered Tuesday as Stevens gave what amounted to the election victory speech he never had a chance to give. Standing at the courtroom lectern wearing a pin of the U.S. and Alaska flags on his sweater, he recounted his career in government - from flying planes in World War II to serving as U.S. attorney to his storied career in the Senate.

He thanked his friends, his supporters and his wife. And he vowed to push his friends in the Senate for tough new laws on prosecutorial misconduct.

Then, with the prosecution team feeling the scrutiny that Stevens felt for years, he smiled, posed for pictures with his family outside the courthouse and said:

"I'm going to enjoy this wonderful day."

Justice officials filed papers last week asking the judge to dismiss the indictment. It was first reported last Wednesday by National Public Radio, which said Holder decided the conviction could not be defended because of problems with the government's prosecution.

"Because Holder owes little fealty to Bush-era decisions at Justice - indeed, because he has taken strong steps to separate himself from some of the worst policies and practices of his predecessors - the move to dismiss Stevens’ convictions is both a political no-brainer and a legal necessity," writes Cohen. "It was the right thing to do on many different levels." (Read more analysis from Cohen.)

[japete]

Thank you to Katie Couric for her courage in asking Attorney General Holder tough questions regarding the gun show loophole and background checks. It is sad that the NRA has managed to frame the gun issue so that our elected and appointed leaders are afraid to speak truth to power. There is no reason that extending background checks to gun shows, flea markets and internet sales would threaten anyone's second amendment rights. Law abiding citizens are not afraid to get background checks from federally licensed dealers; why should they fear getting them from unlicensed private sellers? Do they object to stopping criminals, domestic abusers, dangerously mentally ill people from getting dangerous weapons? The fear injected into this debate is ridiculous. I am disheartened and disappointed that Eric Holder has been told by members of his own party in the House to back off of gun law talk. Fear of re-election trumps loss of life. Power, influence and money trump loss of life. When almost 60 people are gunned down in a few weeks time in mass shootings, something needs to be done. If that many people had died from eating pistachio nuts, we would be debating the matter right now on the floor of the House and Senate. But then, the pistachio nut industry doesn't have a powerful, well-funded lobby working to keep legislation from getting passed. Keep asking your good questions, Katie. We need the media to speak up so that our elected leaders have to answer to the majority of us who want reasonable gun laws to prevent senseless shootings and death.

[seezero1]

Those persecutors must had been mistaken for prosecutors. Anyone can make that mistake.

[dahizzle]

He was let off on a technicality and is still guilty as sin. The prosecutors had a open and shut case with Steven's cohort testifying against him. He's lucky to be exonerated, the prosecutors did a good job and should suffer no repercussions.

[janefondu]

This was an attack from the Democrats, removing one of the most influential Repubs from office. If they follow the lip service maybe just maybe it will get back the Barry O's right hand man Timmy G. gave the order to attack!!! Then can you say IMPEACHMENT!!!

[lloydbest1]

What is so sad and enrages me personally is that there is ample evidence that Stevens IS guilty of many of the charges levied against him. Accepting gifts without disclosure is the least of it. Because of prosecutorial misconduct he will now walk away from this as a free man and the hero he is not.
legal malpractise of this magnitude must NEVER be condoned! The alleged tampering with evidence, outright fabrication of same and with holding of documents is not only outrageous and ethically bankrupt, it was unneccessary. Stevens was as guilty as sin! That he accepted bribes and gifts illegally is beyond dispute. It is as open and shut as any case can ever be. The fact the prosecuting team has no integrity whatever is not indicative that Stevens has any himself. It's basically bad guys vs. bad guys.
For those of you who say that Stevens belongs in jail regardless of the conduct of the prosecution remember that our most cherished foundations of justice is agressive ETHICAL prosecution. It isn't what you know that's important; it's what you can prove. Moreover it is what you can prove within the framework of the law. If the prosecution had so little confidence in obtaining the conviction Stevens so richly deserves without resorting to chicanery, then he should be allowed to walk.
Also bear in mind there is a hope that Bush, Cheney and a host of other blatant criminals may also have to stand trial for their offenses against humanity. If we allow a political or ideological agenda to get in the way of our pursuit of justice then we become no better than the mob we prosecute. No mistake, I want them all strung up by their testic- er...thumbs but NOT at the cost of breaking or politicizing a system of justice that has been for over 200 years the standard by which many free nations look up to. If we can't do it honestly then we don't do it at all!

[lemonskinkus]

Imagine how many Regular Joe's are behind bars because of the same cr.ap being done at the state and local levels. Think about it.

[McHineguy]

I doubt that laying republican like Stevens didn't nothing wrong, it is freaking joke that guy is a layer and tief first class like most of his brothers republicans.
Posted by zokin at 3:24 PM : Apr 7, 2009

More personal attacks!!! that will ruin the Democratic party faster than anything we conservatives do. Personal attacks instead of reason and ration. Isnt that what you accused Bush II of doing?

[babooph]

Hope this is not one of those whaco "Christian " judges that bunch of Bush nuts put in ...

[McHineguy]

The prosecutors in this case should be indicted and if there is sufficient evicence, go to trial. If found guilty, they should lose their licenses to practice law and go to jail.Politicians accept many gifts they don't report. The DOJ will have to start all over again to win respect for the rule of law that most Americans used to have. Case closed.
Posted by gmw7777 at 2:32 PM : Apr 7, 2009

The lead prosecutor is one Brenda Morris. Do a Google search on "Brenda Morris prosecutor". It will open your eyes to a world of probablilities.

[gmw7777]

The prosecutors in this case should be indicted and if there is sufficient evicence, go to trial. If found guilty, they should lose their licenses to practice law and go to jail.Politicians accept many gifts they don't report. The DOJ will have to start all over again to win respect for the rule of law that most Americans used to have. Case closed.

[McHineguy]

Mchiney: Seem like thou dost protest to much' when it comes to trials for former Republican officials. Why are you so afraid of the courts if your people are innocent? If, the female lead prosecutor in the Stevens case was a democrat, then she should pay the price for her unethical acts. See, I do not have problem with a democrat being prosecuted. Yet, I am afraid that you are unable to handle the truth of the allegations against the Bush Administration. If the assertions of illegality yield facts that are supported by the evidence they should be put on trial.
Posted by bajajohn1 at 1:43 PM : Apr 7, 2009

I think you are inferring a position fo rme that I never took. It seems to be part of that whole character assissination/personal attack methodology that has become popular by many Democrats.

My original post was to point out that this was obviously a political prosecution. The prosecuting attorney, the venue, the timing and, now, even the handling of the facts. I went on to say the Stevens may have been guilty but we will never know.

As for your intention to prosecute/persecute Bush it looks to most of us that it is another misuse of the courts. If you continue such abuse you will alienate everyone from your cause. The best advice I can give you is to compare your cause to the one the conservatives persue to prove Obama doesnt have a birth certificate. Both actions have about equal chance of success and are very likely to stigmatize the prosecution much more than their target.

[bajajohn1]

Mchiney: Seem like thou dost protest to much' when it comes to trials for former Republican officials. Why are you so afraid of the courts if your people are innocent? If, the female lead prosecutor in the Stevens case was a democrat, then she should pay the price for her unethical acts. See, I do not have problem with a democrat being prosecuted. Yet, I am afraid that you are unable to handle the truth of the allegations against the Bush Administration. If the assertions of illegality yield facts that are supported by the evidence they should be put on trial.

[McHineguy]

Actually, my point was that the 'extreme' right (the 'everyone who isn't with us is against us' gang) is only about 20% of the population (and I think that's being generous). I think some of the 47% you are talking about includes moderate Republicans some of whom are probably in the 61% approval rating Obama has right now. Which means to me, that "most" of the US population is already concurring in his plan. And yes, we should all be "against" corruption, but for those who are so paranoid they can't see beyond their own little doorstep, the only thing to say is, aren't we lucky there are so few.
Posted by hatesthecolt at 1:22 PM : Apr 7, 2009

Well, we mostly agree on this one. Most of your points where I disagree are nit pickers and I will move on.

But I dont think the number of "with us or against us" conservatives is anywhere near 20%. Remember, Bush had a 22% approval rating when he left office. I for one, am pretty conservative politically (I distrust ALL government, so did Jefferson) but am no where near the with us or against us mentality.

On a more pertanent issue. Obama enjoys a 61% aproval rating amoung all adults and a 56% amoung likely voters. But this is falling as his extravagant spending is allienating moderates on both sides. So, dont take any of that for granted. That was probably the biggest mistake Bush II made. He thought the aproval for his military actions would last forever.

[McHineguy]

Aspirationally, politics should not interfere with the administration of justice. Justice is said to be blindly administered.
....
Posted by bajajohn1 at 1:17 PM : Apr 7, 2009

I have copied the part of your post that I agree with. Did you read the facts I presented to you? You know, the ones that prove the lead prosecutor is a black female democrat? Yeah, Bush II had democrats in his administration too.

And stop the false claims that you need another trial to persecute Bush and his administration. Its just another example of liberals trying to misuse the courts. You are turning America against your cause by this incessant pandering. It sounds about as sincere and likely to succeed as the case against Obamas citizenship.

This article is about a failed justice department and a prosecution that was obviously motivated by politics. Lets deal with that before running all over the place.

[hatesthecolt]

Yeah, except that you guys only account for about 20% of the voting population. That creates a mathematical challenge, don't you think?
Posted by hatesthecolt at 1:06 PM : Apr 7, 2009

Actually, conservatives are about 47% of the voting population. But that isnt the point. It seems to me that all of us should be against corruption and vote together to get it out. Isnt that what you claim happened to Bush II?
Posted by McHineguy

Actually, my point was that the 'extreme' right (the 'everyone who isn't with us is against us' gang) is only about 20% of the population (and I think that's being generous). I think some of the 47% you are talking about includes moderate Republicans some of whom are probably in the 61% approval rating Obama has right now. Which means to me, that "most" of the US population is already concurring in his plan. And yes, we should all be "against" corruption, but for those who are so paranoid they can't see beyond their own little doorstep, the only thing to say is, aren't we lucky there are so few.

[bajajohn1]

Aspirationally, politics should not interfere with the administration of justice. Justice is said to be blindly administered. Given the history of the politicization of the justice department by the Bush administration, is it any wonder that justice was not served in the Stevens case? Then you have all these talking heads on TV, not understanding the legal system and working to sway public opinion. Politicians pay attention to public opinion and so, perhaps, the genesis of this lies shared somewhere between the White House and the Justice Department. Most of America wants the principles in the Bush Administration brought to trial. The air needs to be cleared and cloture must be achieved through the courts.

[McHineguy]

Yeah, except that you guys only account for about 20% of the voting population. That creates a mathematical challenge, don't you think?
Posted by hatesthecolt at 1:06 PM : Apr 7, 2009

Actually, conservatives are about 47% of the voting population. But that isnt the point. It seems to me that all of us should be against corruption and vote together to get it out. Isnt that what you claim happened to Bush II?

[McHineguy]

bradkt, I agree with what you say 100%, but have to add that it's becoming clear Bush really jacked up the DOJ and US Attorneys offices and so he gets some of the blame for this fiasco.
Posted by hatesthecolt at 12:50 PM : Apr 7, 2009

True. I cannot prove it with facts so this has to fall in the realm of opinion. But the lead prosecutor, Brenda Morris, appears to have been chosen as a "token" in the Bush justice department after he messed up with the Gonzales firings.

But that is another subject. The facts are that this prosecution was timed and orchestrated to steal an otherwise unchallenged Senate seat for Alaska. Guilty or not, Stevens is another in a long line of character assassinations by the left. Dirty tricks in the Nixon tradition.

[hatesthecolt]

The truth is , Stevens is innocent. The whole thing was a scam by the democrats to steal Stevens seat. Just like they stole a few others seats......
We need to vote out all democrats and take our country back .....
Posted by UR_Majesty

Yeah, except that you guys only account for about 20% of the voting population. That creates a mathematical challenge, don't you think?

[McHineguy]

McHineguy: Please do not insult our intelligence by blaming the Democrats for this travesty of justice. Take your blinders off.. You might actually understand the article.
Posted by bajajohn1 at 11:27 AM : Apr 7, 2009


He is a republican, blinders are required.
Posted by johndevinejr at 12:46 PM : Apr 7, 2009

Another personal attack!!! Have you guys totally lost your integrity? Do some research as I did.

But I do believe that when the opposition resorts to personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims they have lost the argument. Hopefully, they have the integrity to learn real facts.