« JamesDD IP Number Linked With GSB27 | testing's Blog | TechnologyReview: Google, Yahoo Not Indexing All TPM Pages »
Wecht Prosecutor Stephen Stallings Allegedly Breaches Attorney Ethics
Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct: Trial Publicity
See:
(McFaden, Casey P Prosecutorial misconduct. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Summer 2001), for discussion of
Authorities
Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada
Devine v. Robinson, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
United States v. Klubock, 832 F. 2d 664
McDade Act
Allegations in re Stallings:
1. Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Stallings has allegedly breached the attorney standards of conduct. The rules prohibit prosecutors from making post-trial statements that would affect the jury or the rights of the defendant.
2. Stallings wrote in apparent response to media questions,
3. Stallings failed to state that the "majority" willing to convict was by only one (1) vote, 6-5, and that a jury is required to reach a unanimous decision. Stallings allegedly went beyond any reasonable effort to mitigate any defense counsel themes, and allegedly recklessly portrayed 6 jury members as a super-majority warranting conviction.
4. Stallings allegedly recklessly neglected to mention that a deadlocked jury-vote is not admissible, and there was no reason for him to misrepresent that a deadlocked jury meant anything other than "no jury verdict." It was allegedly improper for Stallings to suggest, imply, or communicate to the media that the split vote on any count meant the jury was convicting the defendant on "some" charges.
5. Stallings allegedly knew or should have known that the disclosure of this information about the jury votes for or against a defendant would substantially affect the defendant's rights before a second jury trial; and went beyond any reasonable effort to mitigate defense counsel's permissible public statements after trial.
6. Stallings reportedly released the vote of the jurors. Stallings allegedly misrepresented the significance of that non-verdict, incorrectly implying and communicating through the media, there had been a conclusion of law, when there was none, allegedly materially affecting the rights of defendant.
7. Stallings allegedly tarnished the public image and reputation of a non-convicted defendant. Stalling allegedly knew or should have known that it was improper for him to release the jury vote related to specific charges, and the interests of justice did not support releasing this information.
8. Stallings allegedly knew or should have known that his conduct as a US Attorney was governed by the State of Pennsylvania:
9. Stalling was allegedly reckless in violating Rule 3.6 in re prosecutor standards of conduct, applicable to him through Title 28:
Stallings' Allegedly Dubious Justifications
10. It cannot be credibly argued that Stallings hoped for any outcome other than to further tilt future jury pools away from the neutral, impartial positions expected of jury members. It remains to be understood why Stallings has released this information, or what other alleged misconduct he as a prosecutor has engaged in re the Wecht trial and FBI interviews of jury members.
11. The exceptions permitted under 3.8 for prosecutors are arguably irrelevant. Stallings statements in no way explain prosecutor actions, but jury decisions. This is arguably not protected, which Stallings allegedly knew or should have known. There was nothing within Stalling's statements about exculpatory evidence, only narrowly focusing on the jury verdict.
12. Stalling's statements are allegedly not connected with any legitimate law enforcement objective, as permitted, but a prosecutorial objective to allegedly affect the future jury pool.
13. Stallings allegedly knew, or should have known, that by making these statements through the media, the public was more likely to condemn the non-convicted, accused defendant. Stallings allegedly knew or should have known that this was not permitted, and not within any protected statement under any attorney standards of conduct.
14. It cannot be argued that Stalling's public, written statements were designed to merely mitigate information released from defense counsel. Defense counsel correctly reported the defendant had not been convicted, and that the jury was deadlocked. It is allegedly false, reckless, and misleading for Stallings to argue that he intended to off-set, mitigate, or neutralize "incorrect" or "misleading" information from defense counsel.
15. Stalling's conduct has allegedly breached his attorney standards of conduct, and materially undermined reasonable public confidence that he as a prosecutor is fully complying with all applicable attorney standards of conduct.
16. The US Attorney General must now comment in writing to Congress whether he plans to block or not block DOJ OPR and DOJ IG from investigating Stalling's alleged breaches of attorney standards of conduct.
See:
(McFaden, Casey P Prosecutorial misconduct. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Summer 2001), for discussion of
Authorities
Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada
Devine v. Robinson, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
United States v. Klubock, 832 F. 2d 664
McDade Act
Allegations in re Stallings:
1. Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Stallings has allegedly breached the attorney standards of conduct. The rules prohibit prosecutors from making post-trial statements that would affect the jury or the rights of the defendant.
2. Stallings wrote in apparent response to media questions,
"The main theme has been to portray the deadlock as a 'verdict' or 'judgment' in defendant's favor, instead of what it really was -- a hung jury with a majority willing to convict."
3. Stallings failed to state that the "majority" willing to convict was by only one (1) vote, 6-5, and that a jury is required to reach a unanimous decision. Stallings allegedly went beyond any reasonable effort to mitigate any defense counsel themes, and allegedly recklessly portrayed 6 jury members as a super-majority warranting conviction.
4. Stallings allegedly recklessly neglected to mention that a deadlocked jury-vote is not admissible, and there was no reason for him to misrepresent that a deadlocked jury meant anything other than "no jury verdict." It was allegedly improper for Stallings to suggest, imply, or communicate to the media that the split vote on any count meant the jury was convicting the defendant on "some" charges.
5. Stallings allegedly knew or should have known that the disclosure of this information about the jury votes for or against a defendant would substantially affect the defendant's rights before a second jury trial; and went beyond any reasonable effort to mitigate defense counsel's permissible public statements after trial.
6. Stallings reportedly released the vote of the jurors. Stallings allegedly misrepresented the significance of that non-verdict, incorrectly implying and communicating through the media, there had been a conclusion of law, when there was none, allegedly materially affecting the rights of defendant.
7. Stallings allegedly tarnished the public image and reputation of a non-convicted defendant. Stalling allegedly knew or should have known that it was improper for him to release the jury vote related to specific charges, and the interests of justice did not support releasing this information.
8. Stallings allegedly knew or should have known that his conduct as a US Attorney was governed by the State of Pennsylvania:
(a) An attorney for the Government shall be subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney’s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State. (28 USC 530B)
9. Stalling was allegedly reckless in violating Rule 3.6 in re prosecutor standards of conduct, applicable to him through Title 28:
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a ProsecutorThe prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(e) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
Stallings' Allegedly Dubious Justifications
10. It cannot be credibly argued that Stallings hoped for any outcome other than to further tilt future jury pools away from the neutral, impartial positions expected of jury members. It remains to be understood why Stallings has released this information, or what other alleged misconduct he as a prosecutor has engaged in re the Wecht trial and FBI interviews of jury members.
11. The exceptions permitted under 3.8 for prosecutors are arguably irrelevant. Stallings statements in no way explain prosecutor actions, but jury decisions. This is arguably not protected, which Stallings allegedly knew or should have known. There was nothing within Stalling's statements about exculpatory evidence, only narrowly focusing on the jury verdict.
12. Stalling's statements are allegedly not connected with any legitimate law enforcement objective, as permitted, but a prosecutorial objective to allegedly affect the future jury pool.
13. Stallings allegedly knew, or should have known, that by making these statements through the media, the public was more likely to condemn the non-convicted, accused defendant. Stallings allegedly knew or should have known that this was not permitted, and not within any protected statement under any attorney standards of conduct.
14. It cannot be argued that Stalling's public, written statements were designed to merely mitigate information released from defense counsel. Defense counsel correctly reported the defendant had not been convicted, and that the jury was deadlocked. It is allegedly false, reckless, and misleading for Stallings to argue that he intended to off-set, mitigate, or neutralize "incorrect" or "misleading" information from defense counsel.
15. Stalling's conduct has allegedly breached his attorney standards of conduct, and materially undermined reasonable public confidence that he as a prosecutor is fully complying with all applicable attorney standards of conduct.
16. The US Attorney General must now comment in writing to Congress whether he plans to block or not block DOJ OPR and DOJ IG from investigating Stalling's alleged breaches of attorney standards of conduct.
Advertisement
WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!!
All beware the poster of this blog is a known spammer on TPM that throws unsubstantiated allegations on the news blogs that link to his unsubstantiated rants on this blog.
If you chose to leave a comment on his blog that does not agree with his conspiracy driven dribble, the blogger will in turn attack you. He has a history of flaming people throughout the TPM site.
He rants that anyone that disagrees with him is somehow connected to the DOJ, attempting to spread misinformation since the poster does not agree with him, attempts to connect the poster to another poster in a means of discrediting him/her, or attempts to claim the commenter is violating TPM policy for posting a divergent point of view.
While there may be some truth in the posting, it is only surely a result of pure accident on his part if there is so. Testing simply posts things he does not know about and then says because no one has stopped to explain the topic to him and the ins and outs, there must be a conspiracy.
Proceed at your own risk.
May 13, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you or other TPM readers have other concerns about these issues, there is a group forming here. Thank you for visiting, and please consider recommending the linked-content so others know about your concerns.
May 14, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink