« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
FBI Agents Contacted Wecht Jurors
The latest from Pittsburgh, where the U.S. attorneys' office continues to drop jaws with its handling of the case. From The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
Two jurors said Thursday they were unnerved by FBI requests for home visits to explain why they deadlocked in the federal public corruption trial of former Allegheny County coroner Cyril H. Wecht.Experts said the practice of using FBI agents to contact and interview jurors in their homes after mistrials was unusual, but the U.S. Attorney's Office in Pittsburgh characterized it as "commonplace."
"I thought it was kind of intimidating," the jury foreman said about the FBI phone call.
Said another juror, "I found it kind of unusual."
A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's Office in Pittsburgh tells the paper that prosecutors just wanted to chat about the case with the jurors, a "commonplace" practice. The FBI agents were simply setting up the appointments. It is true that it's commonplace for lawyers from both sides to speak to jurors after a trial to get feedback. But there are two important distinctions here.
First, prosecutors didn't seek to poll or speak to jurors before making their determination as to whether to retry the case. If they had, the jurors would have said that most of them were ready to vote to acquit. "That seemed to us to be vindictive," Dick Thornburgh, the former attorney general under President George H.W. Bush and a lawyer for Wecht, told me. "It's how [the prosecutors] have behaved the whole case." The jury foreman has even said that the prosecution seemed "politically driven." (See our rundowns of the case here and here.)
And second, using the FBI to contact jurors is far from commonplace (Jerry McDevitt, another of Wecht's attorneys, told me that the agent who'd contacted the jurors was not even the agent who had worked on the Wecht case). Thornburgh told me that it was "unprecedented" in his experience. A former federal prosecutor told the Tribune-Review that it was unusual. And a veteran defense attorney from the Pittsburgh area told the paper that he'd never heard of such a thing. And there's a reason:
"If I'm a prospective juror in the second trial, and I'm hearing stories that if I don't agree with the government that I might get calls from the FBI, that could have a very, very deleterious impact," [the attorney] said. "I would think that's very bothersome to have that happen."
Josh
Zachary
Is this just an attempt to reshape the case to their liking? They should throw the case out of court in the name of republican "tort reform".
April 11, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a case of "what were they thinking" that helps underline the politicization in Justice that stayed under the radar for way too long. I can't think of anyone who couldn't imagine how scary, creepy, and threatening a visit from the FBI—for any reason—would be.
And for anyone who's ever served on a jury, it's mind bending to conceive of any justification for it.
The Bush Admin is definitely down to its former bench warmers, and now that they're up at the plate, they're hitting some impressive fouls. All the better for putting a muzzle on future presidential power.
April 11, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The crown jewel in Bush's hideous legacy is not going to be Iraq, it is going to be the death of justice. Strike that--the rape, murder, and desecration of justice.
April 11, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it should be illegal for lawyers from either side to contact jurors. I had no idea that was allowed. Seems like trying to game the next trial to me.
April 11, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what happened in that Brian Nichols trial in Atlanta before he flipped out. His girlfriend said he raped her so he sat in jail. The jury deadlocked and he got a mistrial. The prosecutor got to interview all the jurors after the mistrial and ask them why they voted the way they did (mostly for acquittal) and then she got to plug all the holes in her case. The retrial went very badly for Nichols and he flipped out before it was over.
Seems kinda weird. Can a defense retry a case? Can they get a chance to correct all their previous errors or just redesign the defense after the fact? It is bad enough the resources available to most defendants are totally insignificant in comparison to the prosecutors.
April 11, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, part of the reason they try to determine where the jury was at if they were hung is to decide whether it is an effective use of resources to try it again.
The U.S. Attorney's Manual says "no prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the government believes that the person probably will be found guilty by an unbiased trier of fact.'' After going 0-for-41 on the charges the first time, a conviction hardly seems probable.
But they made the decision to re-try before even talking to the jurors. Just makes it seem that much more of a witch hunt.
April 11, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It actually is very common for the lawyers in a case to contact jurors by mail. This enables both prosecution and defense the opportunity to understand the jury's view of the case. In PA it is done by mail--no direct contact. This allows the juror the option of not answering. However what is more interesting is that, I thought TPM reported that the Judge precluded defense from polling and contacting Jurors. This stinks to high heavan.
April 11, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of those jurors ought to invite the FBI and record whatever they have to say -- any bit of intimidation would be very clear.
For an agent to do this when the defense attorney is Dick Thornburgh just boggles the mind.
April 11, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. But Thornburgh is just window dressing on the case. McDevitt is the one doing the heavy lifting.
And good for the jurors in contacting the media about this insanity.
April 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope the jurors told them no comment. This is like sending in the Gestopo. The corruption in the DOJ is stunning. We are now a country that lies it's way to War, tortures people and rigs the justice system. The idea that is America is on life support and sinking fast.
April 11, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who will throw these people in prison for abusing their power? Obama? Clinton? I don't believe they will.
April 11, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole case seems to be a mess, but you need to find out why the FBI is making contact with members of the jury, and what questions are being asked. Is there a well-founded concern about tampering; FBI questions might well be proper. Is there a concern about trial tactics or weight of evidence; that really should be left to the AUSAs handling the case.
More to the point: if Main Justice must authorize a "public corruption" prosecution (as I believe is the case), isn't it a decision for Main Justice whether to retry the case? I would feel more comfortable with a detached, career prosecutor weighing in on the retrial decision, given the smell test that this case has yet to pass.
April 11, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully disagree: there is no reason in my mind that the FBI should be contacting these jurors. That just reeks of intimidation.
And I simply see no case in which the FBI has any reason or right to be contacting the jurors in this case when they were complicit in it's making in the first place. Google "Bradley Orsini" and you'll see what I mean. He was the lead FBI investigator on this case with a history of being a dirty agent and violating laws, rules, you name it.
And also, this, from the Post-Gazette:
The FBI has a history of unethical behavior and intimidation in this trial, and this just sounds like another example of that, in my opinion.
April 11, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a fair point, but don't paint with too broad a brush.
April 11, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the FBI was there to look into jury tampering, as you suggest, would the U.S. attorney's office not correct the record by noting that? I assure you, there is no evidence of jury tampering here, only complete corruption and bias on the part of the judge, prosecutors, and FBI agents involved. This is what our justice system has become.
April 11, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get your mucking going and make sure this story spreads to all friends and peers. I guarentee that most Americans would find it a little troubling to find out that FBI agents had interviewed jurors from a case where the goverment is accused of political interference. Seriously TPM or anyone else in the know, is the FBI interviewing jurors a common practice? I could understand an agent being interested in a particular case involving terrorism, drug associations or dangerouse materials etc but why would it be important in this case, and why would the agent assigned not be the one involved in the case?
Maybe we should all just carry recorders and lawyers around for when they are handy! Under this administration it would appear that they are quite so!
April 11, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Relax, folks. It's just the Bushies making their own reality again.
Everything they do resembles the story of Procrustes, who showed his hospitality to visitors by cutting off their legs so they could fit into the small bed he provided for them.
April 11, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
News story about the US Attorney responsible for this case:
http://www.observer-reporter.com/OR/Story/04_27_PA_FiredProsecutors_Buchanan
With U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under attack in Congress for firing eight U.S. attorneys, Buchanan has also come under scrutiny because of a Justice Department administrative post she held in 2005. A former top aide to Gonzales has said Buchanan was consulted in the firings
The controversy has exposed a strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction with Buchanan in the legal community in Western Pennsylvania, where critics say she has devoted too much time pursuing headline-grabbing cases of sometimes minor importance and trying to please Washington.
Two critics are former U.S. Attorney Fred Thieman, a Clinton appointee under whom she primarily prosecuted credit-card fraud cases, and Thomas Farrell, a former assistant U.S. attorney. Both are now defense attorneys and say Buchanan has padded her record of prosecutions with minor cases or headline grabbers. Among the cases they and others cite: her office's prosecution of comedian Tommy Chong's multimillion-dollar drug paraphernalia business. Though the business was based in California, she brought the case in Pennsylvania as a result of an investigation that grew out of a local "head" shop bust. Critics say the Chong case was more about making Buchanan famous than fighting crime.
April 11, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this is common practice for this US Attorney, then the jurors they're contacting should contact the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General at the earliest opportunity.
April 11, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Critics say the Chong case was more about making Buchanan famous than fighting crime.
One needn't be a critic to think that, frankchurch...
April 11, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think sending the FBI to ask jurors why they acquitted is a gross abuse of Federal law enforcement power.
The FBI is not the US Attorney's goon squad - legally speaking that is. However, under the Bush DoJ nothing is done right - legally speaking.
ITMFA
April 11, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "FBI calls to jury members" appears to have had its intended effect: To intimidate jurors. We need to get a separate trial to review this FBI conduct, and find out the US Attys, FBI agents, and SAC's reasons for this action. This may go all the way to the FBI director, DOJ AG, and White House political office, if not the President. Possible grand jury time on these separate allegations.
April 11, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was some evidence that the jury could not find the week before the mistrial was declared by the Judge. A private fax to a law firm in Santa Ana, California, "Fax to P.S.C. re J.M.K. deceased" sent in April 2004. Was the evidence found by the jurors? If not, did the missing evidence sway the jury toward a deadlock?
April 11, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they did find it. Remember that the prosecution buried them in over 10,000 documents. But they were directed to where they could find it. That was the same day they first declared they were at an impasse and further deliberations would not help, upon which the judge sent them back for further deliberations.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23940038/
April 11, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
In an odd move the judge in the case provided the jury the exact page in the evidence that related to these allegations. In most situations, the judge would just say that all the evidence was presented, yet in this situation, the judge said go to page 1145 paragraph ten and the evidence is there.
April 11, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's what the defense tried to do. The judge is a quack. He's been completely biased from the start. And he brought cake for the jurors! Is that not the oddest thing you've ever heard?
April 11, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is no stranger than the judge attempting to seat an anonymous jury. From what I read in the papers, an anonymous jury is usually only sat for drug kingpin cases or organized crime cases. I mean I am sure the county coroner is going to put a hit on a juror. I mean such is realistic isn't it?
April 11, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My suspicions and some rumors are that they were really counting on this prosecution to turn Pittsburgh Republican. They thought this would then deliver PA to the Republican candidate. So I am happy to hear that they did not get away with this bogus indictment.
I hope the House Judicial Committee has some more hearings on crap like this right before the election - to remind the public about the corrupt Republican DOJ. I can never thank TPM enough for the fantastic job of reporting on the completely corrupt Bush DOJ.
April 11, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a generic tampering situation - the judge would be made aware by whichever party (whether the juror, or the pros or defense if suspected by them). It's necessary for pros or def to go on court record to preserve issue for appeal.
However, immediately going public (beyond court) re invest of issue isn't prudent and unlikely - in that if the juror was being physically or otherwise threatened or bribed - telegraphing to offender isn't the best way to investigate or develop prosecution for same or to protect juror. The judge usually gags parties under these circumstances.
Having said that, here, what makes the tampering accusation scenario unlikely is that the first step is for the judge to question the jurors and admonish them to keep quiet for time being -- same for the FBI, if engaged they would have also admonished jurors to not say anything publicly to jeopardize the tamp invest or otherwise face obstruction charges.
Finally, what's also odd is that a prosecutor doesn't need the FBI or any other law enforcement officer other than themselves to initiate an invest or pros (especially for a crime that actually reached its conclusion in the courtroom i/f/o them and theoretically thwarted the concl of the case). Another AUSA not on this case could interview pertinent parties, determine if the evidence was there and then indict for the defendant who would then be arrested on an indictment warrant.
As for comments further up the thread re juror contact. The judge asks at the end of the proceedings whether there's anyone who doesn't want to be interviewed by either side. Jurors are free to say yes or no to whichever side they choose. So if the judge did this but excl the defense sua sponte (on his own) that's certainly improper.
Even if there's no retrial @ issue, the lawyers often want feedback on how they won or lost as a learning tool for future trials.
When juror contact is in anticipation of re-trial, to the comment way up-thread re pros advantage from feedback - it's actually a wash, as the defense has seen all the pros evidence and w/ that, chatting w/ the jurors can help them understand which evidence worked and which did not and prepare accordingly - as they've had a preview.
April 12, 2008 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me, this is the most glaring example of what is wrong in America: Assistant Attorney General John Yoo says that George W. Bush has the right to Torture an innocent child to extort information his paretns may or may not have. Carl Rove orchestrates a campaign to steal the 2002 Alabama Governor's Election by stealing 6,000 votes from Democratic Incumbent Don Siegelman in Baldwin County Alabama through an illegal recount by Republican Judge Adrian Johns(who sends Democratic Poll Watchers home and conducts a 3rd recount with only Republicans present, it is this third Republican Recount in which 6,000 votes disappear) which assures Republican Bob Riley of a 3,000 vote victory. Republican Attorney General William Pryor illegally seizes the voting boxes preventing any further recounts, for which he is rewarded with appointment as a Federal Judge by George W. Bush.
US Attorney Buchanan sends FBI Agents to persecute Jury members who wanted to acquit Cyril Wecht.
We are a Nazi Police State.
We have got to have a Indepedent Counsel who will send George W. Bush, John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales to the Hague or Nuremburg for trial. Several US Attorneys, The Bush/Rove Persecutors in the Department of Injustice need to be prosecuted for obstruction of jusice, malfeasance and violation of their oaths of office. And they need to be punished with life in prison. They offer, they deserve none.
April 12, 2008 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
These links send you to a local paper op-ed as well as letters to the editor on the case. It pretty much speaks to the predominant sentiment in Pittsburgh about this one.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08104/872531-149.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08104/872530-35.stm
April 13, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jury tampering has always been a serious crime until now. Tampering with jurors that were apparently released via mistrial just prior to acquitting the defendant is quite serious as well. Bringing charges the government office that accounts for Wecht's expenses when they didn't send him a bill for said expenses is even more bizarre. That the US Attorney, (it's a joke son) says FBI agents used to talk to juries about such matters as "commonplace" is another serious crime, considering that isn't their job. They are supposed to be investigating crimes.....that their superiors have committed. now I understand.
April 14, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink