Fall 1996
Jack King, Director of Public Affairs
202-872-8600, media@nacdl.com
Federal Prosecutor Thwarted In Effort To Ruin Careers Of Honest Cops
A federal prosecutor in the District of Arizona was dissatisfied with the testimony of Border Patrol agents for the INS in a federal prosecution. The prosecution tried to terminate the career of officers whose testimony did not fit the prosecutor's idea of the case. The United States Attorney sent a letter to these officers' Chief to the effect that the officers had made inaccurate or untruthful statements and had failed to cooperate with the prosecution. On account of this alleged misconduct, the prosecutors said they were no longer going to stand behind their cases in court.
The officers union defended the officers. These officers' cases were submitted to arbitration. The prosecutors had indicated in their letter to the Chief that they would be more than willing to discuss the specific facts underlying their allegations and claims. The Chief made three efforts to contact the prosecutor to elicit more information but the prosecutor did not respond to the contacts and did not provide any additional information. No specific facts were presented by the federal prosecutor. At the arbitration hearings, the prosecutor did not appear or attempt to support the charges against the officers with credible evidence. One of the officer grievants was not even on duty when the incident that gave rise to the trial and the prosecutor's complaints occurred. That officer could not possibly testify one way or another about an incident which occurred when he was not present. One of the arbitrators, Lester H. Bergson, in an opinion signed on 23 April 1996, observed that there was no proof that the grievant had done anything which would prohibit that officer from being a valid witness and that, in fact, the grievant had not created a problem but was the victim of a problem created by the prosecutor.
These cases involving Grisella Monta, Arbitration Case No. 95-25470; Gilbert Lopez, arbitrated by Sanford Cohen in FMCS 95-21764 and decided on 1 April 1996; and the case of Frarellano, arbitrated by Julius Rezler and decided on 24 May 1996, represent an abuse by the prosecutors of their office. Because of apparent displeasure at the testimony of law enforcement officials, the federal prosecutors tried to end the officers' careers. When offered an opportunity to present evidence to establish that the testimony was untruthful or inaccurate, the prosecutor did not come forward. The Chief asked for details but was given none.
This case goes to show that prosecutors not only can abuse their power against defendants, their friends, family and defense lawyers but are also willing to wield that same unbridled authority against law enforcement officers who are unwilling to bend to their whim. In these three instances, fortunately, the prosecutor failed.
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)