Rudolph Giuliani has claimed that he was the best of those who have held the prestigious office of United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Recently, on Meet the Press, he asserted that he had “turned around” the office. We are former prosecutors from the New York area, most of whom served in the United States Attorney’s Office. We are familiar with what goes on in New York law enforcement. We challenge Giuliani’s assessment of himself. As pointed out by Giuliani’s immediate predecessor as United States Attorney, former U.S. District Judge John Martin (OpEd, New York Times, December 15, 2007), the distinguished office, with its more than 50 year unbroken history of non-political excellence, hardly needed Giuliani to “turn it around.” Indeed, his performance as United States Attorney generated considerable criticism, much of which we believe to have been deserved.Giuliani performed creditably in many respects and, like all prosecutors, had his share of significant successes. But, unlike those who preceded and followed him in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Giuliani was repeatedly accused by judges, prosecutors, law professors and the defense bar of ignoring traditional professional standards, while improperly using his office to publicize himself.
For example, a number of federal judges, experienced in criminal law, publicly chastised him for his behavior, particularly the unlawful practice of “leaking” confidential grand jury information to the press. Such behavior violates the Canons of Ethics, Justice Department regulations and, under some circumstances, can be a criminal offense.
In May 1986, United States District Judge Whitman Knapp, formerly Chairman of the Knapp Commission and Chief Appeals Attorney under Manhattan District Attorney Frank Hogan, issued an opinion in which he found that Giuliani’s office was apparently leaking privileged information to the press:
'[U]nless the media was wholly irresponsible in continually asserting that the source of these revelations was someone in the Department of Justice who was asking not to be identified, it may well be said that such improper disclosure has been established by the sheer number of newspaper articles citing such an authority in providing information that turned out to be accurate …
It may well be that the Attorney General of the United States would be interested in ascertaining which of his employees was engaged in violating one of the statutes he or she was sworn to uphold, or the Congress might deem such an inquiry appropriate. United States v. Friedman, 635 F. Supp. 782, 785.'
On January 14, 1988, United States District Judge Kevin T. Duffy, formerly Assistant United states Attorney and New York Regional Administrator of the Securities and Exchange Commission, issued an opinion criticizing Giuliani’s efforts to force the Judge to remove himself from the highly publicized prosecution of Bess Meyerson. The opinion described how Giuliani caused another federal judge to contact Judge Duffy to encourage him to withdraw, an action which Hofstra University Law Professor Monroe Freedman described as “serious misconduct.” Judge Duffy concluded that Giuliani sought his withdrawal because the judge had imposed an order limiting publicity by the prosecution:'In the instant case it is interesting to note thatthe government was content to have me preside, even after I offered to recuse myself, until I announcedthat the court rule prohibiting one-sided publicitywould be enforced …
'The United States Attorney’s motion for my disqualification apparently arises out of my long-established and oft-stated belief that cases shouldbe tried in the courtroom and not in the newspapers.United States v. Meyerson, 677 F. supp. 1309, 1313.'
Judge Duffy denied Giuliani’s motion to recuse, but withdrew from the case, saying that Giuliani’s behavior had offended him so much that he was not sure he could be impartial.
On January 15, 1988, after Judge Duffy removed himself from the Meyerson case, the trial was assigned to Federal District Judge John Keenan, who had previously served as Special Prosecutor for Corruption, New York City Criminal Justice Coordinator, and Chief Assistant District Attorney in the District Attorney’s Offices in both Manhattan and Queens. Judge Keenan immediately issued instructions that neither the prosecution, nor the defense, was to speak to the press about the case. Within 10 days, Giuliani violated this order by personally granting a two-hour interview. Judge Keenan was forced to re-issue his directive as a formal written order. (Feb. 1, 1988 Order in U.S. v. Meyerson).
On March 6, 1989, United States District Judge John E. Sprizzo, formerly Chief Appellate Attorney and Assistant Chief of the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fordham law professor and member of the Knapp Commission, dismissed the government’s charges against seven alleged drug dealers, declaring that Giuliani “should have run a training school for Assistant U.S. Attorneys, teaching them how to try cases.”
'There is in your office – and I notice it notonly in this case but in other cases – a kind ofoverkill, a kind of overzealousness, which is noteven – from my viewpoint as a person who has beena prosecutor – rationally related to any legitimateprosecutive objectives. (Quoted in Manhattan Lawyer, 3/14/89).'Robert M. Morgenthau, respected District Attorney in Manhattan, and former United States Attorney, stated that he was “baffled” by a public attack Giuliani made on him in the course of improper discussions Giuliani had with reporters regarding a dispute with Morgenthau over jurisdiction (New York Times, 2/11/88).
Conservative New York Times columnist William Safire criticized Giuliani’s use of press leaks to threaten potential witnesses, charging that Giuliani would “do anything for publicity.”
'Apparently Mr. Giuliani sees himself as the new Tom Dewey, riding a crime-busting reputation to the governorship and a Republican Presidential nomination. In the exposure of fraud and bribery, “[he]” apparently figures, anything goes.' (N.Y. Times, 2/24/86, Page A - 15.)
In the current presidential campaign, Giuliani presents an inflated and sometimes seriously inaccurate picture of his achievements as a federal prosecutor. The major organized crime prosecutions which he claims to have originated were actually developed by the FBI, most of them during the term of his predecessor. The most important public corruption cases occurring during his tenure resulted from an investigation by the United States Attorney in Chicago, Illinois. The “Wall Street” cases were developed by the SEC, on a tip from a brokerage house. Under Giuliani, an unusual number of high profile cases began with skillfully manipulated fanfare, but ended in dismissals, acquittals or reversals.Giuliani’s claim that, as United States Attorney, he investigated the Palestine Liberation Army’s murder of Leon Klinghoffer is contradicted by the Justice Department prosecutor who handled the matter, as well as the Klinghoffer family attorney. Giuliani also falsely maintained that dragging two stockbrokers from their offices in handcuffs and arresting a third was “routine,” and that the arrests were “the tip of the iceberg.” In fact, such “show” arrests of federal defendants were previously unknown, and the cases against two of the arrestees in question were ultimately abandoned.
When asked during his mayoral race, about a case where a 62 year old survivor of Auschwitz was taken in handcuffs to a room in the United States Attorney’s Office and confronted with a blackboard bearing the words that had been inscribed over the gate at Auschwitz, “Arbeit Macht Frei – work shall set you free,” Giuliani at first denied any knowledge of the incident. When confronted with the fact that his office had investigated the matter, he acknowledged that he had known about it, but said that he had not personally followed up on it. The suspect was acquitted at trial.Giuliani’s performance as United States Attorney simply does not match his claims. In fact, we believe that the pattern of improper leaks to the media, excessive use of publicity, and other inappropriate conduct that he engaged in while serving as United States Attorney, together with the disingenuous way in which he now describes his service, casts doubt, generally, on Giuliani’s credibility and judgment.
Michael F. ArmstrongAssistant U.S. Attorney, Chief, Securities Fraud Unit S.D.N.Y.;Chief Counsel, Knapp Commission;District Attorney, Queens County, New York.
Thomas H. BaerAssistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y.
John R. Bartels, Jr.Assistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y.
Paul BergmanChief, Appeals, U.S. Attorney, E.D.N.Y.
James BrownAssistant District Attorney, Manhattan.Donald J. CohnAssistant U.S. Attorney, Administrative Officer S.D.N.Y.Anthony J. D’AuriaAssistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y.Daniel DonnellyAssistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y.David M. DorsenAssistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y.Michael S. FawerAssistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y., Chief, Organized Crime Unit.Thomas J. FitzpatrickAssistant U.S. Attorney S.D.N.Y., Chief, Criminal Division.
Peter E. Fleming, Jr.Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y.Martin R. GoldAssistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y. Paul R. GrandAssistant U.S. Attorney , Chief, Securities Fraud Unit, S.D.N.Y.Roger J. Hawke Assistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y.Guy L. HeinemannAssistant U.S. Attorney, E.D.N.Y.Neal J. HurwitzAssistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y.
Robert E. KushnerAssistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y.Daniel R. Murdock Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y.
Gerald E. PaleyAssistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y.William O. PurcellAssistant District Attorney, Manhattan.Paul K. RooneyAssistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y.Victor TemkinAssistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y.Frank M. TuerkheimerAssistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y;.Associate Special Watergate Prosecutor;United States Attorney (W.D. Wis.).Max WildAsistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y.
Sources: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usrudy0125%2C0%2C3018412.story and http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/01/not_good_for_giuliani_25_exnyp.html
No comments:
Post a Comment