If we're to believe Judge Ricardo Urbina's order to dismiss all charges against the Blackwater guards, then for the second time in two years, manifestly guilty defendants are likely going to walk because Bush-era prosecutors shredded the Constitution. It makes you wonder--how many other instances are there where prosecutors felt the need to win at all costs even when they already had overwhelming evidence against the defendants?
A cursory look at the prosecutors' behavior during the Blackwater case immediately raises comparisons with the Ted Stevens case. If you'll remember, despite what appeared to be overwhelming evidence of corruption, Holder had no choice but to seek a dismissal of the Stevens indictment. The reason? Prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense, and may have knowingly allowed the star witness to perjure himself on the stand.
The Blackwater case appeared to be solid as well. Numerous witnesses were prepared to testify that the guards opened fire first. However, the prosecutors improperly used incriminating statements given by the guards--a clear Fifth Amendment violation that no appeals court could have ignored. As a result, the guards may never be tried in an American court.
It makes you wonder--how many other times has this happened? I realize that Holder may be already starting the slow-motion strangulation process of investigating Bush-era Justice Department abuses. But given that we now have two high-profile cases where prosecutorial misconduct trumped overwhelming evidence, I would think that Holder would want to have a look to see how many other instances where this happened.
Urbina probably said it best at the start of his opinion--the safeguards in the Bill of Rights exist to protect the integrity of the system. Safeguarding that integrity requires that ensuring even the manifestly guilty get a fair trial. After all, "no one is above the law" means nothing if there are people who are below the law.