It’s rare that a particular prosecutor is named in an opinion by a federal appeals court. Apparently the Department of Justice wishes it were more rare.
The Ninth Circuit issued a curious opinion last month, in United States v. Lopez-Avila.
Previously, the court of appeals had issued an opinion that was critical of a particular Assistant United States Attorney. The Department of Justice filed a motion asking that the Ninth Circuit remove the name of that prosecutor from the public opinion.
Here’s the appellate court’s response:
The Department of Justice has an obligation to its lawyers and to the public to prevent prosecutorial misconduct. Prosecutors, as servants of the law, are subject to constraints and responsibilities that do not apply to other lawyers; they must serve truth and justice first. United States v. Kojayan, 8 F.3d 1315, 1323 (9th Cir. 1993). Their job is not just to win, but to win fairly, staying within the rules. Berger, 295 U.S. at 88. That did not happen here[.]
It goes on, after noting that the appeal involved misconduct by the prosecutor in the trial court that was relatively obvious.
When a prosecutor steps over the boundaries of proper conduct and into unethical territory, the government has a duty to own up to it and to give assurances that it will not happen again. Yet, we cannot find a single hint of appreciation of the seriousness of the misconduct within the pages of the government’s brief on appeal.
The Ninth Circuit then concludes,
upon initial release of this opinion, the government filed a motion requesting that we remove Albert’s name and replace it with references to “the prosecutor.” The motion contended that naming Albert publicly is inappropriate given that we do not yet know the outcome of any potential investigations or disciplinary proceedings. We declined to adopt the government’s suggestion and denied its motion. We have noticed that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona regularly makes public the names of prosecutors who do good work and win important victories. E.g., Press Release, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona, “Northern Arizona Man Sentenced to Federal Prison for Arson,” (January 31, 2012) (“The prosecution was handled by Christina J. Reid-Moore, Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Arizona, Phoenix”), available at http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/press_releases/2012/ PR_01312012_Nez.html. If federal prosecutors receive public credit for their good works–as they should–they should not be able to hide behind the shield of anonymity when they make serious mistakes.
This is the Striesand effect – where an effort to make something not be public gets it even more attention – in action.
Perhaps the best recent example of the Streisand effect was when Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins, sued over media coverage he disliked.
My reaction to seeing Snyder’s suit was that he seems really entitled.
It’s hard not to think the same thing of the Department of Justice here.