The U.S. District judge ruled Tuesday that prosecutors' "highly unusual, extensive and truly bizarre actions" warrant throwing out the convictions of Archie Kaufman, Kenneth Bowen, Robert Gisevius, Robert Faulcon and Anthony Villavaso.
....
Attorneys for the former officers say a series of leaks to news organizations were part of a "secret public relations campaign" that deprived their clients of a fair trial. The former officers' attorneys also cited a series of anonymous online posts by senior prosecutors. Former U.S. Attorney Jim Letten resigned in December 2012 after two of his top deputies acknowledged they had been posting anonymous comments on nola.com, the Times-Picayune's companion website, about cases their office had handled, including the Danziger Bridge investigation.
....
In his opinion, Judge Kurt Englehardt, who heard the case originally, wrote: "This case started as one featuring allegations of brazen abuse of authority, violation of law and corruption of the criminal justice system; unfortunately, though the focus has switched from the accused to the accusers, it has continued to be about those very issues. After much reflection, the Court cannot journey as far as it has in this case only to ironically accept grotesque prosecutorial misconduct in the end."
During a hearing in June 2012, Engelhardt said it appeared federal prosecutors didn't conduct a "full-blown investigation" after The Associated Press and The Times-Picayune published articles about former New Orleans police officer Michael Lohman's guilty plea while his case was under seal. Lohman pleaded guilty to participating in a cover-up of the shootings.
Let us stipulate that all of the above is true.
Retry the defendants without the hoopla and shenanagans. If the allegations are true they will be found guilty again.
Procedurally, I did not see (might have missed it - if so, someone point me to it please) where the fefense entered any objections to the behavior alleged during the trial. While I understand that The Rules allow for motions such as were filed without objections being made during the trial, I am very uncomfortable with that being the way things work. In cases where knowlege of the behavior could not have been discovered during the trial, and thus objected to, I will allow an exception. But in this case they had the chance to object and I cannot find anything showing that they did so. That makes the trial court merely step #1 of a multi-step procedure to arriving at an original ruling. In my civics classes they taught me that was not the way things were done.
stay safe.
