United States v. Stevens
715 F. Supp.2d 1, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130186, 2009 WL 6525927 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court has the inherent supervisory authority to compel the Department of Justice to produce internal communications when prosecutors, as officers of the court, have made conflicting and misleading representations regarding a material issue, such as a witness's whistleblower status, thereby undermining the integrity of the judicial proceedings.
Facts:
- FBI Special Agent Chad Joy, a co-case agent in the investigation and trial of Senator Ted Stevens, filed an internal complaint alleging serious prosecutorial and law enforcement misconduct.
- The complaint alleged that prosecutors schemed to prevent a witness from testifying, intentionally concealed exculpatory evidence from the defense, and mishandled evidence.
- The complaint also detailed misconduct by the lead FBI agent, including fostering an inappropriate relationship with the government’s main witness and intentionally redacting exculpatory information from a document provided to the defense.
- On December 4, 2008, the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) sent a letter to Agent Joy stating that it lacked jurisdiction to investigate whether he was entitled to relief as a whistleblower because he had not alleged any reprisal.
- During a sealed court hearing on December 19, 2008, prosecutors from the DOJ's Office of Public Integrity (OPI) argued that Agent Joy’s complaint should be sealed, citing his potential status and rights as a whistleblower.
- Agent Joy's own attorney also argued for the complaint to remain sealed based on whistleblower protections.
- At the December 19 hearing, the government prosecutors did not inform the court that OPR had already notified Agent Joy on December 4 that he did not currently qualify for whistleblower protection.
Procedural Posture:
- During the post-trial phase of Senator Ted Stevens's criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the government filed a whistleblower complaint from FBI Agent Chad Joy under seal.
- The government filed a motion to seal the complaint from the public and a motion to file ex parte, seeking to limit disclosure to the defense.
- The court held a sealed hearing on December 19, 2008, to hear arguments on the government’s motions.
- On December 22, 2008, the court granted in part and denied in part the government's motions, ordering a redacted version of the complaint to be placed on the public docket.
- Defendant Stevens then filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial, based on the allegations in the complaint.
- On January 14, 2009, the government requested a hearing to unseal the identities in the complaint, revealing for the first time that Agent Joy had been notified prior to the December hearing that he was not afforded whistleblower protection.
- On January 16, 2009, the Court ordered the Attorney General to file a declaration explaining the government's communications regarding Agent Joy's status.
- The government filed an Emergency Motion for a Stay of the court's January 16 Order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court have the authority to order the Department of Justice to produce internal communications regarding an FBI agent's whistleblower complaint when prosecutors have made conflicting and potentially misleading representations to the court about that agent's whistleblower status?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
Yes. A court has the authority to order the production of such communications to protect the integrity of the judicial process. The court found that the government's representations regarding Agent Joy's whistleblower status were a central factor in its earlier decisions about sealing the complaint. The government's subsequent, conflicting revelations—first, that Agent Joy had been denied protection before the hearing, and later, a reversal claiming he had never been denied protection—demonstrated a pattern of misleading the court. The prosecutors from the Office of Public Integrity (OPI), including the Deputy Chief and Chief, admitted they were witnesses in the internal investigation, creating a conflict of interest that compromised their ability to provide candid information. Given this "ongoing series of incidents" of misrepresentation, the court concluded that compelling the production of communications involving OPI was necessary to ascertain the facts and ensure the integrity of the proceedings.
Analysis:
This opinion underscores a district court's robust inherent supervisory power to manage its proceedings and police the conduct of counsel. The court's order to produce internal government communications is an extraordinary remedy, justified here by the prosecutors' repeated failure to meet their duty of candor to the tribunal. The decision establishes that when prosecutors' representations are found to be unreliable and they are conflicted, a court may pierce the typical confidentiality of internal government deliberations to investigate potential misconduct and protect the integrity of the judicial system. This serves as a significant check on prosecutorial power and a stark warning about the consequences of misleading a court, particularly in cases involving allegations of government misconduct.
