2023 Investigative Summary 10

INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY, MAKING INFLAMMATORY STATEMENTS TO THE GRAND JURY, MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT, AND FAILURE TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

A U.S. Attorney’s Office facilitated a self-report by an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) that a court recommended dismissing the charges against a defendant because the AUSA and the case agent summary witness presented false and misleading statements to the grand jury that materially differed factually from the theory of the case presented to the court, prejudicing the grand jury’s decision to indict.  The court also found that the government failed to preserve evidence, providing an alternative ground for dismissal.  The court also criticized the AUSA for making inflammatory statements to the grand jury.  During its investigation, OPR also examined additional grand jury testimony, not identified by the court, that was allegedly false and misleading and an allegation that the AUSA made misrepresentations in a court filing.

Based on the results of its investigation, OPR concluded that the AUSA violated her obligations under the rules of professional conduct, the Justice Manual, and the Grand Jury Manual when she recklessly presented false testimony and made irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and inappropriate remarks during the grand jury presentation.  OPR also concluded that the AUSA violated her obligations under the rules of professional conduct and her general duty of candor when she knowingly filed a pleading that contained false and misleading statements.

OPR concluded that the evidence did not establish to a preponderance that the AUSA or the agent committed professional misconduct when they presented inaccurate testimony to the grand jury concerning the initial theory of the case because their actions were not unreasonable given the information provided by the victim and the evidence then gathered during the investigation or when the AUSA and the agent failed to preserve evidence.

OPR referred its findings to the Professional Misconduct Review Unit, which subsequently affirmed OPR’s findings and conclusions and authorized OPR to refer the former AUSA to the appropriate state attorney disciplinary authorities, which OPR has done.