Jan 15, 2021 · 1942: The Attorney General sets up a special War Frauds Unit, later supervised by the Criminal Division, to prosecute all cases involving fraud upon the government in its war efforts. 1943: Beatrice Rosenberg, one of the first female attorneys in the Criminal Division, starts working as an attorney in the Appellate Section. She went on to ...
Investigation. In the Federal Government, there are agencies that employ criminal investigators to collect and provide information to the United States Attorneys in the respective district. The investigators at these agencies investigate the crime and obtain evidence, and help prosecutors understand the details of the case.
Whenever a grand jury is involved in an investigation, the agents will work closely with an attorney from the U.S. government, either from the local U.S. Attorney’s Office or the U.S. Department ...
May 03, 2019 · Jacob Sullum | 5.3.2019 12:45 PM (C-SPAN) Yesterday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Attorney General William Barr of committing a crime by lying to Congress about Robert Mueller's objections to...
United States Attorney General | |
---|---|
Member of | Cabinet National Security Council |
Reports to | President of the United States |
Today, nearly 90 percent of federal criminal defendants are aided by lawyers, investigators and experts paid for under the Criminal Justice Act. Hiring in defenders' offices is intensely competitive, and the quality and vigor of their representation has earned the admiration of federal prosecutors, including U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
Many Americans believe the right to a court-appointed lawyer began with Gideon v. Wainwright, a famed 1963 Supreme Court decision in which Clarence Earl Gideon, a Florida drifter, argued that he could not be sent to prison without a lawyer to argue his case.
Together, the measures created the modern federal defenders system, and helped secure a right that Americans now take for granted: meaningful legal representation even for those who can't afford it.
District Judge Edward C. Prado, who is now a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, reported that fee payments were briefly suspended two straight years because money had run out. The committee cited "the rise in federal prosecutions of what were traditionally state cases."
More than 140 years passed before the Supreme Court began to address that void. A 1932 case, Powell v. Alabama, concerned nine black teenagers accused of raping two white girls in Alabama. In just 12 days, they were indicted and then convicted, in trials each lasting just a few hours.
Fifty years ago—August 20, 1964 —the President signed into law the Criminal Justice Act (CJA), which for the first time assured professional legal counsel in federal courts by paying an hourly fee for court appointed lawyers. Six years later, Congress established a full-time federal defender service within the judicial branch.
Constitution was drafted. In 1791, the Sixth Amendment made a right to counsel the law of the land.
The change in the law undermined the confirmation authority of the Senate and gave the Attorney General greater appointment powers than the President, since the President's U.S. Attorney appointees are required to be confirmed by the Senate and those of the Attorney General did not require confirmation.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that some of the emails that had involved official correspondence relating to the firing of attorneys may have been lost because they were conducted on Republican party accounts and not stored properly. "Some official e-mails have potentially been lost and that is a mistake the White House is aggressively working to correct." said Stanzel, a White House spokesman. Stonzel said that they could not rule out the possibility that some of the lost emails dealt with the firing of U.S. attorneys. For example, J. Scott Jennings, an aide to Karl Rove communicated with Justice Department officials "concerning the appointment of Tim Griffin, a former Rove aide, as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, according to e-mails released in March, 2007. For that exchange, Jennings, although working at the White House, used an e-mail account registered to the Republican National Committee, where Griffin had worked as a political opposition researcher."
He also stood by his decision to dismiss the attorneys, saying "I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision". Gonzales admitted that "incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to Congress" by Justice Department officials, and said that "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood."
A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed" and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions".
Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.
On May 2, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Gonzales compelling the Department of Justice to produce all email from Karl Rove regarding evaluation and dismissal of attorneys that was sent to DOJ staffers, no matter what email account Rove may have used, whether White House, National Republican party, or other accounts, with a deadline of May 15, 2007, for compliance. The subpoena also demanded relevant email previously produced in the Valerie Plame controversy and investigation for the 2003 CIA leak scandal.
Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 6. He said that the seven were fired for job performance issues and not political considerations; these statements lead several of the dismissed attorneys, who had been previously silent, to come forward with questions about their dismissals, partially because their performance reviews prior to their dismissal had been highly favorable.
In the Federal Government, there are agencies that employ criminal investigators to collect and provide information to the United States Attorneys in the respective district. You may already know some of the agencies, such as: The investigators at these agencies investigate the crime and obtain evidence, ...
Testimony of an eyewitness to a crime would be considered direct evidence because the person actually saw the crime. Testimony related to something that happened before or after the crime would be considered circumstantial.
Searches usually require a search warrant, issued by a “neutral and detached” judge. Arrests also require probable cause and often occur after police have gotten an arrest warrant from a judge. Depending on the specific facts of the case, the first step may actually be an arrest.
If a magistrate has issued a search warrant for a suspect or if a grand jury has returned an indictment against a suspect, federal agents will arrest the suspect and place him or her in custody pending court proceedings.
If a crime is brought to the attention of federal authorities, whether by a victim of the crime or a witness to it (e.g., a bank robbery), a federal law enforcement agency will undertake an investigation to determine whether a federal offense was committed and, if so, who committed it. Two points should be kept in mind:
The guilt phase generally begins with the prosecutor’s opening statement. The defense has the option of making its own opening statement immediately afterwards or reserving its opening statement for the beginning of its case-in-chief. The prosecutor then presents the government’s proof through physical evidence and witnesses. The defense is entitled to cross-examine any witnesses questioned by the government. Once the government has completed its case, the defense may move the court to acquit the defendant, on the ground that there is legally insufficient evidence to convict. If the court denies the defense motion, the defense may present its own case, and the prosecutor may cross-examine any witnesses presented by the defense. Following the defense case, the prosecutor may present evidence to rebut the defendant’s case. Once the prosecutor concludes its rebuttal case, the defense again can move for an acquittal. If the court denies that motion, the parties present their closing arguments: first the prosecutor, then the defense, and finally the prosecutor again (the government goes first and last because it has the burden of proof). Following closing arguments, the judge will instruct the jury on the relevant law for it to apply. Afterwards, the jury will retire to decide the case. When the jury has reached its decision, the jury will return to the courtroom and announce its verdict. If there is no jury, the judge will deliberate and return a verdict.
This initial appearance generally will occur as soon as practicable following arrest and must occur before 72 hours have passed. At the initial appearance, the court will inform the arrestee of the charges and advise him or her of the rights to counsel and to remain silent.
For example, the Secret Service is responsible for investigating counterfeiting of currency, and the FBI is the lead federal agency for terrorism cases. This assignment of functions helps different agencies develop expertise, but it also means that federal law enforcement agencies are not like local police forces—they do not each handle whatever federal crime comes their way.
The offender has the right to be present for sentencing, as does a victim. Both persons may make a statement before the court imposes sentence. The lawyer for the government and the offender also will address the court regarding the sentence. If a victim is represented by an attorney, the victim’s counsel also can address the court at sentencing.
Whenever a grand jury is involved in an investigation, the agents will work closely with an attorney from the U.S. government, either from the local U.S. Attorney’s Office or the U.S. Department of Justice, before making an arrest in order to determine whether a crime was committed and, if so, who is responsible.
Charles Diggs (D-MI), convicted on 29 charges of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms which formed a kickback scheme with his staff. Sentenced to 3 years (1978).
Although the convicted politicians are arranged by presidential terms in chronological order, many of the crimes have little or no connection to who is president. Since the passage of 20th Amendment on January 23, 1933, presidential terms have begun on January 20 of the year following the presidential election; prior to that, they began on March 4.
John Dean (R) White House Counsel, convicted of obstruction of justice, later reduced to felony offenses and served 4 months.
John Ehrlichman (R) former White House Counsel, convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. Served 18 months in prison.
Frank Brasco (D-NY) sentenced to 5 years in jail and fined $10,000 for conspiracy to accept bribes from a reputed Mafia figure who sought truck leasing contracts from the Post Office and loans to buy trucks (1974).
Wes Cooley (R-OR), was convicted of having lied on the 1994 voter information pamphlet about his service in the Army. He was fined and sentenced to two years' probation (1997) He was later convicted of income tax fraud connected to an investment scheme. He was sentenced to one year in prison and to pay restitution of $3.5 million to investors and $138,000 to the IRS.
Harry Claiborne (D), Federal District court Judge was tried and convicted of federal tax evasion; he served over one year in prison (1983). He was later impeached by the House, convicted by the Senate and removed from office (1986).