Judge refers Philadelphia’s progressive district attorney to DOJ for prosecution

A federal judge referred Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner and one of his top prosecutors to the Justice Department for potential obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements tied to the recent review of a 2009 murder conviction.

Late Tuesday, Judge Paul Diamond, a George W. Bush appointee, said after a review of evidence and testimony that he “reluctantly concluded that Philadelphia’s highest law enforcement official and one of his top assistants may have violated the law.”

In a highly unusual internal struggle, four top prosecutors in the office alleged that Krasner and the chief of the conviction integrity unit, Matthew Stiegler, were conflicted because they were trying to protect their own reputation rather than candidly explain to the judge why they were withdrawing a motion in support of reviewing the conviction.

“The credible evidence is tantamount to a prima facie showing of conduct that may constitute false statements, false declarations made under oath, perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy,” the judge wrote in a 40-page opinion referring the conduct to the US attorney’s office in Philadelphia. He also disqualified Krasner and Stiegler from the underlying case.

Krasner, a former civil rights attorney, has built a reputation as one of the nation’s most progressive district attorneys.

“I respectfully and vigorously disagree with the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law,” he said in a statement. “I look forward to appealing to the higher court as soon as the law allows. This remains a pending matter, which limits for now my and my office’s ability to respond in the media.”

Stiegler could not be reached. A representative for the US attorney’s office declined to comment.

Diamond highlighted several of Krasner’s alleged actions, including accusations that he ordered senior prosecutors to place blame for errors on a junior prosecutor, failed to reveal the breadth of the errors to the judge, and then stated there would be “consequences” for the senior prosecutors who wanted to alert the court to the conflict issues.

Larry Krasner joins The Lead

Philly DA weighs state charges for pardoned Jan. 6 rioters

The actions stem from a review of the second-degree murder conviction of Dennis Johnson, who in 2010 was sentenced to life in prison. Fifteen years later, key witnesses recanted, and Johnson sought to have his conviction overturned arguing ineffective counsel.

The DA’s office agreed after Stiegler spoke directly with the defense team and put a junior prosecutor in charge of the case to carry out his instructions to concede, the judge found.

In preparation for a hearing, four supervisors reviewed the files and one of them said that Johnson’s argument was “not a winning claim” and a legal filing submitted by the junior prosecutor to the court contained “very significant errors,” according to the order.

The junior prosecutor who drafted the concession brief at the direction of Stiegler was asked to withdraw the filing and take responsibility with the judge, according to the order. The junior prosecutor instead resigned and, according to the order, wrote in her resignation letter to Krasner that Stiegler had “used me to further his personal agenda of conceding” in cases where the lawfulness of someone’s detention is in dispute, “regardless of the merits.”

After the resignation, Stiegler lobbied the four senior prosecutors to place blame for the questionable filing on the junior prosecutor, the judge found.

The four senior prosecutors met with Krasner.

According to the judge’s order, Kranser told the prosecutors, “[S]omeone gave me a really good idea. Actually, it was Matt, Mr. Stiegler, that gave me this really good idea. I think that we should go through [the junior prosecutor’s] cases, find mistakes that she made in other cases, say that this was a pattern by her, and then file something with the Court saying that.”

The judge found that the prosecutors objected and suggested Krasner refer the case to the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office because of a conflict.

Krasner called the attorney general’s office “evil” and stated they needed to have someone in the room to “protect the office,” according to the order. In another meeting where the issue of referring the case came up, supervisors told the judge that Krasner called everyone in the AG’s office “Nazis.”

Krasner refused to send the case to the attorney general’s office, and wanted someone in his office to prepare a memorandum urging the judge to not hold a hearing into the office’s decision to withdraw the concession motion.

Three of the senior prosecutors wrote a memo to Krasner stating, “[W]e believe DA Krasner is conflicted because he has conferred with ADA Stiegler about this case.”

According to the judge’s order, one of the prosecutors said that Krasner “said he doesn’t really care about the merits, he would want the person handling the case to not do a full investigation, and he seemed to be caring more about the reputation of the office than about competently handling this case.”

Philadelphia DA: Trump ‘wants an excuse to cancel elections’

Krasner replied using his chief of staff’s email address. In the email, according to the order, Krasner acknowledged that he wanted to “protect the office,” but the phrase was taken out of context.

The senior prosecutors presented Krasner with a draft letter referring the case to the attorney general’s office. Krasner was “apoplectic,” one of the supervisors told the judge. After they told him they would have to notify the judge if the case was not referred, Krasner told them there would be “consequences” if they carried that out, according to the judge.

Ultimately, the prosecutors filed to withdraw their earlier motion, which prompted the judge’s inquiry. Diamond said Krasner declined to testify or submit an affidavit.

“Mr. Krasner does not wish to give this Court a truthful account of how the Concession came to be even though his duty to the Court requires him to do so,” the judge wrote.

“He thus sought to direct the very lawyers obligated by law to correct the Concession’s errors to do just the opposite,” Diamond wrote, adding, “Even worse, when told that the Four believed they had to alert me, Mr. Krasner responded that ‘there would be consequences for [one of the prosecutors] if she alerted the Court to the conflict issue,’ and that there would be consequences ‘if anyone did.’”

一名联邦法官将费城地方检察官拉里·克拉斯纳及其一名高级检察官移交给司法部，原因是他们涉嫌妨碍司法公正、作伪证和发表虚假陈述，这些行为与最近对 2009 年一起谋杀案定罪的审查有关。

周二晚些时候，由乔治·W·布什任命的法官保罗·戴蒙德在审查了证据和证词后表示，他“不情愿地得出结论，费城最高执法官员及其一名高级助手可能违反了法律”。

在一场极其罕见的内部斗争中，该办公室的四名高级检察官声称，克拉斯纳和定罪诚信部门负责人马修·斯蒂格勒存在利益冲突，因为他们试图保护自己的声誉，而不是坦诚地向法官解释他们为什么要撤回支持复审定罪的动议。

法官在一份长达40页的意见书中写道：“可信的证据相当于初步证明存在可能构成虚假陈述、宣誓作伪证、伪证罪、妨碍司法公正和共谋的行为。”该意见书将此事移交费城联邦检察官办公室。他还取消了克拉斯纳和斯蒂格勒在该案中的代理资格。

克拉斯纳曾是一名民权律师，如今已成为美国最具进步精神的地区检察官之一。

“我强烈反对法院的事实认定和法律结论，”他在一份声明中说。“我期待在法律允许的范围内尽快向更高一级法院提起上诉。目前此案仍在审理中，因此我和我的办公室暂时无法在媒体上做出回应。”

记者未能联系到斯蒂格勒。美国检察官办公室的一位代表拒绝置评。

戴蒙德重点列举了克拉斯纳的几项涉嫌行为，包括指控他命令高级检察官将错误归咎于一名初级检察官，未能向法官披露错误的严重程度，然后表示，如果高级检察官想要提醒法庭注意利益冲突问题，将会有“后果”。

拉里·克拉斯纳加盟《领跑》节目

费城地方检察官正在考虑对1月6日骚乱中被赦免者提起州级指控。

这些行动源于对丹尼斯·约翰逊二级谋杀罪定罪的复审。约翰逊于2010年被判处终身监禁。15年后，关键证人翻供，约翰逊以辩护律师失职为由，试图推翻其定罪。

法官发现，在斯蒂格勒直接与辩护团队交谈后，地方检察官办公室同意了，并指派一名初级检察官负责此案，以执行他的让步指示。

根据命令，在准备听证会期间，四名主管审查了文件，其中一名主管表示，约翰逊的论点“并非胜诉之说”，而且初级检察官提交给法院的法律文件中存在“非常严重的错误”。

根据命令，在施蒂格勒的指示下起草让步陈述的初级检察官被要求撤回文件并向法官承担责任。然而，这位初级检察官却选择了辞职。根据命令，她在写给克拉斯纳的辞职信中表示，施蒂格勒“利用我来推进他个人在拘留合法性存在争议的案件中做出让步的个人议程，而不管案件本身是否合理”。

法官发现，在斯蒂格勒辞职后，他游说四名资深检察官将这份有问题的文件的责任推卸给那名资历较浅的检察官。

四名高级检察官会见了克拉斯纳。

根据法官的命令，克兰瑟告诉检察官：“有人给了我一个非常好的主意。实际上，是马特·斯蒂格勒先生给了我这个好主意。我认为我们应该审查（这位初级检察官）经手的案件，找出她在其他案件中犯的错误，证明这是她的惯用伎俩，然后向法院提交一份文件说明这一点。”

法官认为，由于存在利益冲突，检察官反对并将此案移交给宾夕法尼亚州总检察长办公室。

根据法庭记录，克拉斯纳称司法部长办公室“邪恶”，并声称需要有人在场“保护办公室”。在另一次讨论是否移交此案的会议上，主管们告诉法官，克拉斯纳称司法部长办公室的所有人都是“纳粹”。

克拉斯纳拒绝将案件移交给司法部长办公室，并希望他办公室的某人准备一份备忘录，敦促法官不要就该办公室撤回让步动议的决定举行听证会。

三名高级检察官写了一份备忘录给克拉斯纳，其中写道：“我们认为地方检察官克拉斯纳存在利益冲突，因为他曾就此案与地方检察官斯蒂格勒进行过磋商。”

根据法官的命令，其中一名检察官表示，克拉斯纳“说他并不真正关心案件的实质，他希望负责此案的人不要进行全面调查，而且他似乎更关心办公室的声誉，而不是胜任地处理此案。”

费城地方检察官：特朗普“想找个借口取消选举”

克拉斯纳用他幕僚长的邮箱地址回复了邮件。根据命令，克拉斯纳在邮件中承认他想“保护办公室”，但这句话被断章取义了。

高级检察官们向克拉斯纳递交了一份将此案移交总检察长办公室的信函草稿。据其中一位主管告诉法官，克拉斯纳当时“勃然大怒”。据法官所述，在他们告知克拉斯纳，如果不将案件移交，他们必须通知法官后，克拉斯纳威胁说，如果他们真的这么做，将会有“后果”。

最终，检方撤回了之前的动议，这引发了法官的调查。戴蒙德表示，克拉斯纳拒绝作证或提交宣誓书。

法官写道：“克拉斯纳先生不愿向法庭如实说明特许权是如何达成的，尽管他对法庭的职责要求他这样做。”

“因此，他试图指示那些依法有义务纠正让步错误的人去做完全相反的事情，”戴蒙德写道，并补充说，“更糟糕的是，当被告知四人认为他们必须通知我时，克拉斯纳先生回应说，‘如果（其中一名检察官）向法院报告利益冲突问题，将会有后果’，而且‘如果任何人这样做，都会有后果’。”