What I would have said about the Stevens case if I were Eric Holder

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday April 05, 2009 · 4:47 AM PDT

2009/04/05 · 04:47

While Eric Holder deserves to be applauded for quashing Ted Stevens' conviction, the one mistake he's made so far is giving the Repubs a window to turn on the spin machine. Already, we've seen Mitch McConnell argue that the trial may handed his Senate seat to Mark Begich (even though Begich was leading in most polls before the trial) as well as demands for Begich to resign because his victory was tainted by DOJ "interference."

Granted, Holder isn't a politician--but he could have done a bit more than his terse statement announcing that he was throwing out the indictment.

So if I were Holder, I'd have done a lot more. Follow me below the jump for the statement I would have given if I were Holder.

Today, I instructed the prosecution team in the case of United States v. Theodore F. Stevens to drop the government's opposition to the defense's motion to dismiss the guilty verdict against Senator Stevens. I have further instructed the prosecution team to move for the dismissal of the indictment against Senator Stevens, with prejudice.

This decision came after a review of the case revealed the most egregious case of prosecutorial misconduct I have ever seen. Among other things, the prosecution failed to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to Senator Stevens' defense team, as required by the Constitution. I had initially determined that enough exculpatory evidence was withheld that the only remedy was to retry the case.

However, the situation changed when we recently discovered a previously undocumented interview of the primary witness for the prosecution, Bill Allen. In this interview, Mr. Allen made statements that directly contradicted the testimony he gave at trial. Most seriously, Mr. Allen said he could not recall having any discussions with Bill Persons regarding the repair bill for Senator Stevens' house. At trial, Mr. Allen stated Senator Stevens asked Mr. Allen to to give Mr. Persons a note Stevens sent him asking for a bill on the repair work.

This revelation raised the possibility that Mr. Allen not only gave perjured testimony at trial, but did so with the knowledge of the prosecution. Under the circumstances, I concluded that the taint this may have placed on the case, as well as the potential violation of Senator Stevens' right to a fair trial, substantially outweighed any benefit there may have been to further prosecution of someone who is of advanced age and no longer in public office.

I want to make one thing very clear. This is in no way a statement on the guilt or innocence of Senator Stevens. The issue here is much more fundamental than that. While I agree that the decision to pursue this case is based on the concept of no one being above the law, it is as important to remember that no one is below the law. No matter how overwhelming the evidence may be against a defendant, there is no excuse whatsoever for violating his or her right to a fair trial. Prosecutorial misconduct of this sort cannot and will not be tolerated by this department.

I have also ordered the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility to conduct a thorough review of the prosecution of this matter. Be assured, they will be held accountable, and prosecuted if necessary.

This content was created by a Daily Kos Community member.

Make YOUR voice heard!

Comments are closed on this story.