--
Just when the ACR Blog thinks that the defense counsel for Kevin Ring can't get any more illogical, the attorneys at Miller and Chevalier amaze me again.
In the case of USA vs. Kevin Ring, there is a kerfuffle surrounding the former lead attorney for the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, William Welch II. The ACR Blog understands that there are serious allegations of prosecutorial misconduct involving Mr. Welch in the corruption case against Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). As a result, Mr. Welch's actions will thoroughly investigated by respected DC-based attorney and special prosecutor Henry Schuelke. And there's the rub ... because Schuelke is also scheduled to appear as a witness for the prosecution in the case of USA v Kevin Ring.
Count X of Mr. Ring's indictment involves the alleged lies he told to Mr. Schuelke while Mr. Schuelke was investigating the corruption of Team Abramoff at Greenberg Traurig. In my previous post I described the extremely convoluted reasoning used by Mr. Ring's lawyers that there would be "prejudice to Mr. Ring caused by Mr. Schuelke's dual roles as prosecutor/investigator [of Mr. Welch] and witness [against Mr. Ring]". So even though Mr. Welch has now removed himself from the case, Mr. Ring's lawyers are persisting with this distracting motion.
Reply in Support of Motion to Remedy Prosecutorial Conflict of Interest, June 25, 2009
In the opinion of the ACR Blog, the Justice Department hasn't acted in an ideal manner regarding Mr. Welch. Instead of building a wall between Mr. Welch and the Ring case, the DoJ has informed Judge Ellen S. Huvelle that Mr. Welch will have a limited role in meeting certain discovery obligations. This is contrary to Judge Huvelle's "expectation" announced in April that Mr. Welch would be removed from this case. The ACR Blog finds itself in rare agreement with Mr. Ring's attorneys that this "expectation" implied that Judge Huvelle wanted Mr. Welch removed from the case entirely. It is disappointing to the ACR Blog that Mr. Welch retains any role whatsoever in this case.
The ACR Blog believes that the best course of action is simply to remove the distraction -- Mr. Welch should have absolutely no contact with this case. (Actually, the ACR Blog would prefer that Attorney General Eric Holder find a new chief for the Public Integrity Section.) But of course that simple solution never occurred to the defense attorneys:
Because the government has ignored this Court's earlier recommendation concerning how to remedy the situation, the Court should now act more decisively. The matters raised in the defense motion are serious and warrant the relief requested ...
But the simple remedy isn't one of the remedies sought by Mr. Ring and his attorneys. The remedies proposed by Mr. Ring are:
1. Disqualification of the entire prosecution team.
2. Dismiss Counts IX and X, two counts that depend on Mr. Schuelke's testimony.
3. Sever Counts IX and X.
4. Prohibit the testimony of Mr. Schuelke.
Motion to Remedy Prosecutorial Conflict of Interest, pp. 8-9
All of the remedies proposed by Mr. Ring are akin to swatting a distracting fly with a sledgehammer. There is no conflict of interest involving Mr. Schuelke's anticipated testimony. The appropriate course of action for the Justice Department is to actually comply with Judge Huvelle's recommendation and remove the distracting fly. The most Judge Huvelle should do is chastize the Justice Department for its poor judgment and encourage the DoJ to actually "wall off" Mr. Welch from this case. Mr. Ring's Motion to Remedy Prosecutorial Conflict of Interest should be denied.
0 comments:
Post a Comment