Charges Against Stevens Dropped

Last November in the following post:

http://60733066.blogspot.com/2008/11/is-ted-stevens-convicted-felon-or-not.html

I mentioned that there was significant prosecutorial misconduct in the case of Ted Stevens, the 85-year long time Sentator from Alaska who lost his bid for re-election last Nov in light of his conviction for lying on federal disclosure forms.

I expressed hope that he would win his appeal. As it turns out, it didn't even make it that far.

Today's NY Times article,

In a stunning development, Justice Department lawyers told a federal court that they had discovered a new instance of prosecutorial misconduct in the case and asked that the convictions be voided. There would be no new trial in the case.

Wow.

Now some may say, "See the system works. Mr. Stevens has been exonerated."

But think about it. Mr Stevens, a distinguished Senator of 40 years (longest serving Republican in history), had his life's work and reputation ruined by a misguided prosecution. He has endured an invasive and embarrassing criminal prosecution, the threat of imprisonment, and millions of dollars in legal expenses (which he does not recover) for conduct that was not illegal.

(Some may say that his conduct WAS illegal but the prosecution just bungled the case and he got off on a technicality but as I read the article, the prosecution willfully distorted the testimony of the key witness who had in earlier interviews provided exculpatory testimony that indicated that Mr Stevens did not know what the prosecution alleged he did. I think he was completely innocent from the outset and the prosecution knew it.)

When you are the subject of a federal investigation and subsequent prosecution, you have already lost. It doesn't matter whether you are acquitted or not -- you have lost. There is no such thing as "winning" a federal case.... you either lose big (conviction and prison) or lose small (acquittal but bankruptcy and loss of reputation).

Fortunately, while small consolation to Mr. Stevens, "it appeared that the prosecutors who tried Mr. Stevens on ethics charges would themselves now face ethics charges."

Hmmm..... we'll see.

ADDENDUM:

See this post at the Sentencing Law and Policy Blog:

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2009/04/official-ag-holder-statement-on-dojs-new-position-in-stevens-case.html

My real-world translation [of the Attorney General's official statement]: "Though I have concluded we secured a constitutionally tainted conviction in the course of ruining Senator Stevens' career and legacy, I won't admit that any lawyers did anything wrong and I hope that by dropping this whole matter nobody will consider what this case reveals about our federal criminal justice system."

Though I am not a tort law or Bivens specialist, I cannot help but think about whether Senator Stevens might have a viable civil law claim for damages as a result of all the economic harm he has suffered as a result of his constitutionally tainted prosecution and conviction. At the very least, I would hope the feds might pick up some of his post-conviction legal bills.

MORE COMMENTS:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/when-prosecutors-step-over-the-line/

Maurice Clarett Blogs from Prison

First, apologies for not blogging more. There is always so much more to say than I have time and then I end up saying nothing. I had so much more "freedom" to write in prison :)

Second, I just read that Maurice Clarett is blogging from prison.

For the uninitiated, Clarett was a former football great -- albeit for only one year -- at Ohio State University, leading them to the national championship over Miami in 2002 before making some really bad choices that landed him in prison. You can read his bio here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Clarett

The ESPN article is here: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3948006

His blog is here: http://mauriceclarett.wordpress.com/

His purpose is somewhat different than my purpose. For example, he says:

I have no interest in discussing prison’s day to day operations. That serves no
purpose in my life. I created this site for other reasons. There are too many
young men and women that need hope and inspiration.

He is focussing on keeping people out of prison. I was, and am, focussed on helping people who were already caught up in the federal justice system, rightly or wrongly.

He states:

To a large degree, prison doesn’t exist to me anymore. I’m mentally
removed, on certain levels.

That is a common coping mechanism I observed in prison and I am certainly not going to judge it, especially when he and others had so much more time than I did. However, I took a different psychological approach. I "coped" by treating my experience as an "adventure" and I made a point of observing and recording every little detail I could.

It is something of a paradox that I could insulate myself from the potentially destructive aspects of prison life by essentially immersing myself in it. I created distance through proximity. By staying in "the moment" and focussing on the feelings and immediate experience, one can forget the larger "context" and create a different more positive meaning for your life.

The result I hope is that I have integrated my prison experience into my larger life rather than compartmentalizing it away. It has the added advantage that I have been able to help many others navigate the emotions of preparing for prison, a journey almost all inmates have had to make without a map.

Is Ted Stevens a Convicted Felon or Not?

Ted Stevens, the 84-year old Republican Senator from Alaska, was recently convicted of 7 felony counts of lying on federal disclosure forms. (The media has inaccurately been saying that he was convicted of corruption but the prosecutors did not allege that any bribery, blackmail, or favors were involved in the receicing of the gifts.... they simply claim he intentionally did not disclose the gifts, which primary involved improvements to his home.)

However, Ted Stevens has been claiming that he is NOT a convicted felon.

So which is it? Is he a convicted felon or not?

Yes. :)

He was convicted by a jury but the conviction is not final until all appeals have been exhausted and the judge sentences the defendant. It is the issuance of the Judgment and Commitment after sentencing that establishes the conviction. (By the way, that is also why Kenneth Lay, of Enron, had his sentence vacated when he died before being sentenced.)

So, does this mean Ted Stevens was allowed to vote (see here also) in his own Senate race for re-election (which he appears to have won by the way -- there is no restriction on a felon serving as a Senator, although if his appeals fail, it is possible the Senate will remove him)?

Actually, yes.

I had the same thing happen to me in 2006. On October 13, 2006, three weeks before the mid-term elections, I entered a guilty plea and was scheduled to be sentenced in January, 2007.

I asked my lawyer if I was allowed to vote. She didn't know and asked the prosecutor. He said he does not notify the board of elections until after sentencing and that it is ok for me to vote because I was not yet a convicted felon, despite my guilty plea. Therefore Stevens was legally allowed to vote.

In any case, Stevens has significant grounds for appeal. Unfortunately, most citizens don't pay attention to details on matters like this and automatically assume he's a crooked politician and that the prosecution wears the white hat.

Not so fast.

There was significant prosecutorial mischief and even misconduct (see here also) in this case that form the basis for an appeal. Despite the convictions (which are exceedingly easy to get in federal court), the charges were relatively weak. Stevens was NOT charged with corruption, merely not reporting the gifts. He is guilty of a procedural, not a substantive, sin. It is a problem of appearance. The idea that someone could be a convicted felon and spend time in prison for not reporting something is just silly, especially since no one is alleging that anyone was harmed (except the intangible claim that "the people" are entitled to know who is giving stuff to their elected leaders). I don't think people pay enough attention to these things to know how really trivial this case was.

While Stevens apparently, according to Colin Powell, has a "sterling" reputation, he was combative and aggressive while on the stand, an approach that probably didn't serve him well. After 40 years in the Senate, he is used to having things his way and didn't much appreciate the female prosecutor questioning his integrity.

Again, a situation in which an unsympathetic, powerful, celebrity defendant is aggressively (to the point of abuse) prosecuted for relatively minor charges.

Personally, I hope he wins his appeal but I'm not holding my breath.