U.S. Department of Justice building in Washington, D.C. Jan. 10, 2012. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ ALM

A group representing career federal prosecutors on Thursday defended the integrity of the trial team whose sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone was overruled by U.S. Justice Department leaders, raising alarms about the politicization of a criminal case involving a longtime friend of President Donald Trump.

In a statement, the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys said the career prosecutors handling Stone's case in Washington's federal trial court "properly exercised their discretion" in recommending a prison term of between seven and nine years. Following a series of tweets from Trump, senior DOJ leaders withdrew the court filing and replaced it with one calling the original recommendation "excessive."

"The four [assistant U.S. attorneys] assigned to the case did nothing wrong or improper, and their sentencing recommendation was consistent with what is regularly done in sentencing proceedings around the country," the group said.

"Recommendations on sentencing should be developed by the career prosecutors assigned to a particular case and their supervisors in the U.S. Attorney's Office," the prosecutors' association added. "These recommendations are, and should be, made impartially and without the political influence of elected officials."

Three of the four prosecutors—Adam Jed, Aaron Zelinsky and Michael Marando—withdrew from the Stone case in apparent protest of the Justice Department leadership's extraordinary move. A fourth prosecutor, Jonathan Kravis, then deputy chief of the fraud and political corruption section, resigned from the Justice Department. Inside the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, morale has suffered in the aftermath of the stunning developments in Stone's case, according to people familiar with the office.

The statement came just hours after U.S. Attorney General William Barr, in an interview with ABC News, expressed frustration with Trump's public comments about Stone's case. Barr said Trump's tweets about the Justice Department "made it impossible for me to do my job."

William Barr testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing Jan. 15, 2019. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

"I think it's time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases," the attorney general said.

Stone was found guilty last year of obstructing a congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, along with lying to federal agents and intimidating a witness. His sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 20 before U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia.

The intervention in Stone's case invited speculation that the Justice Department leadership had bowed to pressure from the White House in support of a longtime confidant of the president's. It sent a shock through the legal community, striking many as an apparent affront to the Justice Department's independence.

A Justice Department spokesperson, Kerri Kupec, said this week that the department leadership had not communicated with Trump or anyone else at the White House before the overruling the original sentencing recommendation. A senior Justice Department official said that initial recommendation had surprised department leaders.

In the statement released late Thursday, the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys said the career prosecutors had "simply applied the sentencing guidelines to the facts" of Stone's case.

"That is what happens in the vast majority of sentencing proceedings around the country—the government frequently recommends a sentence within the applicable sentencing guidelines range, unless unique facts of the case call for a higher or lower sentence," the group said.

In the original sentencing recommendation, the career prosecutors emphasized that Stone had posted an image on his Instagram account of Jackson, the judge presiding over his case, with what appeared to be crosshairs next to her head.

"Stone's post-indictment conduct demonstrated the low regard in which he held these proceedings," the four prosecutors said in their original sentencing memo. A day later, the Justice Department withdrew its recommendation and said a sentence of between seven and nine years "would not be appropriate or serve the interests of justice in this case."

The government suggested a lower range, between 37 and 46 months, would be more in line with typical sentences in obstruction cases.

Democratic lawmakers have called for the Justice Department's inspector general to investigate the maneuvering in Stone's case. A spokesperson for the DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has declined to comment. Barr is set to testify March 31 at the House Judiciary Committee.

On Thursday, the chief judge in Washington's federal trial court issued a rare statement laying out the factors considered in sentencing decisions. Among them, Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell said, are the "applicable sentencing guidelines" and the recommendations of the parties.

"Public criticism or pressure," she said, "is not a factor."

 

Read more:

Chief DC Judge Defends Judge Amy Jackson Ahead of Stone Sentencing

DOJ's Roger Stone Debacle Puts New Focus on Judge Amy Berman Jackson

'When Character Matters Most': How Lawyers Are Defending Stone Prosecutors Who Quit

'A Very Difficult Time': Challenges for Career Lawyers at Trump's DOJ

'Slammed': What Has Driven Departures From Trump's Justice Department