2021 Investigative Summary 5

Investigation of Misrepresentations Made to Defense Counsel and the Court and Violations of Grand Jury Practice Standards 

A U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) reported that a court criticized Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSA) for making prejudicial comments to the grand jury and knowingly providing defense counsel with an inaccurate grand jury transcript.  After obtaining and reviewing case records, OPR identified other potential violations of Department and USAO grand jury practice standards and expanded the scope of its investigation.  

OPR’s investigation determined that an AUSA, at the direction of the AUSA’s supervisor, knowingly provided defense counsel with an inaccurate grand jury transcript that was material to the potential outcome of matters pending before the court but failed to inform defense counsel of the inaccuracies in the transcript.  OPR concluded that the AUSA and the AUSA’s supervisor committed professional misconduct in violation of state rules of professional misconduct relating to truthfulness in statements to others.

OPR’s investigation also revealed that the AUSA knowingly failed to inform the court that the grand jury transcript was not accurate when the accuracy of the grand jury transcript was discussed during a pretrial conference.  OPR concluded that the AUSA committed professional misconduct in violation of an attorney’s general duty of candor to the court and state rules of professional conduct relating to candor.  OPR also determined that the AUSA exercised poor judgment by failing to comply with multiple grand jury practice standards.  

OPR also concluded that another AUSA, who was also a member of the prosecution team, committed professional misconduct in reckless disregard of multiple grand jury practice standards during the grand jury investigation and presentation, including presenting prejudicial evidence, failing to present exculpatory evidence, and failing to present evidence sufficient to establish certain counts in the indictment.  OPR concluded that the AUSA’s reckless disregard of multiple grand jury practice standards violated state rules of professional conduct by failing to competently represent the client.  OPR referred the matter to the Professional Misconduct Review Unit.