Jack King, Director of Public Affairs
202-872-8600, media@nacdl.com
Jack King, Director of Public Affairs
202-872-8600, media@nacdl.com
When an Assistant U.S. Attorney in 1994 lied to the judge, jury and defense counsel about the existence of a secret agreement with an informant, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a major drug indictment in U.S. v. Kojayan. He had argued falsely during closing argument that the informant was unavailable as a witness when he was available. Defense counsel claimed a secret cooperation agreement between the informant and the government, and told the jury that since the government had the power to call the informant as a witness but did not, it was clear that the informant's testimony would have hurt the government's case. A.U.S.A. Jeffrey Sinek misled the jury saying there was no such agreement, that the informant "had the right to remain silent" and that "the government can't force anybody to talk." In fact, the secret cooperation agreement required the informant to testify anytime prosecutors wanted him to. Sinek first admitted to the existence of the secret agreement during oral argument in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the defendants' drug conviction and sent the case back down to the trial judge strongly suggesting that the case be dismissed. Judge Edward Rafeedie, expressing shock at the prosecutor's "flagrant misbehavior," did just that.
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)