online slots real money usa best us casino bonuses codes top online casinos for usa players top 10 casinos slot machines games best paying casino games 2014 bonus guide best online slots site casino forum best online casino slots us player blackjack casino real money play casino slot machine online


Get Our Newsletter


Twitter Widgets



Links

Columnists





Site Search


Entire (RSS)
Comments (RSS)

Archive Calendar

January 2011
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Guides

How to Become a Bounty Hunter



Column: Defense Attorney Says Some Fed Prosecutors Need to be Fired and Indicted for Their Acts

James Burdick is a former Wayne County prosecutor in Detroit and is a criminal defense attorney who also practices health care discipline and is a reinstatement expert at the firm of Burdick Law, P.C. in Bloomfield Hills, Mi. He has also appeared regularly on Larry King Live, Court TV, Geraldo, Good Morning America and other national shows.

James Burdick

By James Burdick

I was reading a recent USA Today article cited in ticklethewire.com, which found 201 cases since 1997 in which courts concluded that federal prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules. In some of  those instances, cases were tossed or sentences were reduced.

It’s good to see those facts unearthed. Still, someone needs to ask the Justice Department: How many of the ASUAs (assistant U.S. Attorneys) who got caught doing these things were fired? (I’m sure only a fraction of offensive behavior was ever discovered, just as few ever get caught pulling off their first bank robbery.)

The other pressing question for the Justice Department is: How many were indicted as they should have been for obstruction or related charges? Answer: Few, if any.

Example: In a drug case I tried in the Western District of Michigan in Grand Rapids, the U.S. Attorney ADMITTED to the Court that the trial AUSA and case agent had withheld “potentially exculpatory evidence.”

In May of 2009, the government filed a motion that said: “A preliminary inquiry had indicated that the Government was in possession of information which may have corroborated the claim of this defendant that he presented at trial, that he himself provided the information which led to his arrest and this indictment. In the interest of justice…..the government will thereafter move to dismiss the indictment…Furthermore, an investigation of Defendant’s allegations has been initiated.”  (Read document)

The case was dismissed against that defendant as a result, but the AUSA is still prosecuting cases and the promised “internal investigation” has resulted in nothing at all (no public disclosure) or has concluded that the AUSA could stay, continue to prosecute, and not get indicted.

What do you think would have happened to a defense attorney who acted that way? He/she would have lost their license, been prosecuted for sure, and landed in prison.

People don’t want to believe that some guardians of justice in this Country can be as corrupt as the criminals they pursue. There’s a reason why prosecutors often joke: “Anyone can convict the guilty; it takes real work to convict the innocent.”

It would be funny if it weren’t so scary.


Print This Post Print This Post

Write a comment

You need to login to post comments!

Comment from laserhaas
Time January 6, 2011 at 9:57 am

Prosecutorial misconduct comes in many forms.

There are efforts to prosecute cases that should not be done – because of politico motivations. Such examples of this are Ted Stevens, Gov Siegelman (and subsequent AL prosecutions of Dems) – as well as the NJ purported corruption prosecutions (again of Republicans destroying Democrats) under trumped up entrap charges by a criminal put on the payroll at victims expense.

Then there are prosecutions with extreme bad faith to destroy innocents – in order to boost conviction ratios and promote ones career.

But the least addressed issue of prosecutorial misconduct is the arbitrary and capricious refusal to prosecute cronies.

In MN Petters Ponzi scheme – a partner with Petters was a brother of the MN Asst US Attorney. But another key player in the Petters case has been receiving DOJ willful blindness for a decade or more. The same counsel who is known for brown bag contributions – also was partner with Marc Dreier and associated on both sides of the fence with OKUN.

Dreier rec’d 20 years – Petters 50 years – OKUN 100 years;
yet the counsel who confessed to conspiracy to defraud a federal court – AFTER the DOJ instructed them NOT to do the very crime they schemed and went ahead with anyway.

What did he get for $1 billion in fraud
a $750,000 disgorgement and DOJ UST promises of willful blindness – that granted him Polaroid as the 2nd highest bidder.

All the while the Deputy Director of the DOJ EOUST resigned and the local US Attorney refused to prosecute.

When we pointed this out to the Public Corruption Task Force;
they shut it down and actually threatened career assistant US Attorney’s to keep their mouths shut or else!

http://www.petters-fraud.com/DOJ_Cover_UP.html

Write a comment

You need to login to post comments!