Tag: Brady Rule

“It’s only Brady material if they know about it”: Context key in understanding actions of rogue Assistant US Attorneys in Jim Letten’s office

…..it should not go unnoticed that Letten, Perricone, Mann, Kennedy and Coman all learned how to prosecute under the tutelage of the justifiably-maligned Harry Connick. The excoriating opinions from the U.S. Supreme Court, which primarily address Connick’s office’s mishandling of Brady materials, are reflective of a “win at all costs” approach. It’s not as if Letten and his posse were able to purge themselves of the manner in which they were trained to prosecute cases when they advanced to the US Attorney’s office.

Sockpuppet’s comment pairs nicely with the quote in the post title from an alumnus of former Orleans Parish DA Harry Connick’s office quoting what used to be a common banter between the prosecutors there. After yesterday’s events related to the Perricone disaster a reader email finally prompted me to finish this post as his non-lawyerly observations were astute:

This US Attorneys office is starting to look like Harry Connick (is) at the USAO Your commentors may have hit on something….whats the old HR term? Train the trainers. Lets see the ends justify the means…

Yep defines our times. Niccolo Machiavelli’ is alive and well and living here in New Orleans and working as an Assistant US Attorney General.

I think it is clear, given all the revelations and related chatter of more dirty laundry to come, the ghost of Harry Connick is very much alive and well down on Camp Street. I mention all this because the prosecutorial misconduct chickens continue to come home to roost for Team Connick as Times Picayune pundit James Varney recently explained: Continue reading ““It’s only Brady material if they know about it”: Context key in understanding actions of rogue Assistant US Attorneys in Jim Letten’s office”

The Kings of Tort: Did Chapter Four (Paul Minor) provide honest service to the book’s readers? (Part 1 of 2)

For me, on Minor, the different jury instructions given on the same charges doesn’t sit well…

Comment to White Knight takes issue with author of Kings of Tort

The question posed in the title is not rhetorical but, instead, one for readers to decide – preferably after reading the information in this post. As Sop’s comment suggests, the hallmark of Minor’s second trial was same charges with different jury instructions.

The district court required quid pro quo for the same bribery charges in Mr. Minor’s first trial in 2005. As described by the April 17,2008 House Judiciary Committee Majority Staff Report for Chairman Conyers, in the first trial “Mr. Minor was acquitted of most charges while the jury hung on others. On retrial. after the presiding judge revised his evidentiary rulings and relieved the prosecution of the need to prove certain elements of the alleged [bribery] crime, Mr. Minor was convicted of what have been described as ‘vague’ charges based on alleged efforts to obtain an unfair advantage from the two lower court judges, again through loan guarantees, and again despite the fact that Mississippi law allows such guarantees.” Continue reading “The Kings of Tort: Did Chapter Four (Paul Minor) provide honest service to the book’s readers? (Part 1 of 2)”