At Roger Stone's Sentencing, an Apology From the Justice Department
"The Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office is committed to enforcing the law without fear, or favor, or political interference," DOJ lawyer John Crabb told the judge.
February 20, 2020 at 03:22 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
When U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson entered her courtroom Thursday to sentence Roger Stone, she was greeted by a Justice Department prosecutor who had not said a word in the trial of President Donald Trump's longtime friend and confidant.
Hanging over the morning's hearing was the tumult of the previous week, a stretch that saw Justice Department leaders intervene in Stone's case to suggest a more lenient sentence than the more than seven-year prison term career prosecutors originally recommended. The extraordinary move—coming just hours after Trump tweeted his objections to the original recommendation—undercut the career prosecutors, prompting all four of them to withdraw from the Stone's case and one to resign from the Justice Department entirely.
So on Thursday, Jackson was met with the prosecutor who stepped in to fill the void: John Crabb, the acting chief leading the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington. After calling him up speak, Jackson was unsparing as she delved into the remarkable developments in Stone's case.
"I fear that you know less about the case than just about everybody else in the courtroom," she said, pointing to a recently hired defense lawyer for Stone as a possible exception.
Crabb immediately apologized, telling Jackson he wanted "to make clear to the court that this confusion was not made by the original trial team." The team, he said, had been authorized to suggest a sentence of between seven and nine years in prison, adding that the recommendation was made in "good faith."
Crabb's explanation effectively reiterated what senior Justice Department officials said last week: There was a "miscommunication" between the attorney general and U.S. attorney over the sentencing recommendation.
When Jackson pressed for details, asking whether he had been directed to write the second sentencing recommendation, Crabb demurred, saying he was "not at liberty" to discuss internal deliberations.
But he did seek to downplay allegations of political interference in the handling of Stone's case.
"The Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office is committed to enforcing the law without fear, or favor, or political interference," Crabb said.
Jackson noted the original sentencing recommendation was not withdrawn, and that both memos from the government were signed by the newly appointed acting U.S. attorney in Washington, Timothy Shea.
Jackson appeared vexed by the varying sentencing recommendations, asking Crabb to explain how she should consider the dueling suggestions. And while the initial sentencing recommendation set in motion the dramatic events ahead of the hearing, Jackson emphasized she was never going to impose a sentence of between seven and nine years, saying such a prison term would be "greater than necessary."
Entering Thursday's proceedings, it was an open question whether—or how deeply— Jackson would seek to dive into the Justice Department's maneuvering ahead of the hearing. The intervention in Stone's case drew widespread condemnation and invited suspicions of political interference in the criminal prosecution. More than 2,000 former Justice Department lawyers signed a letter assailing the "interference in the fair administration of justice" and commending the four career prosecutors for standing up for the Justice Department's independence.
Crabb on Thursday defended those original prosecutors in his remarks to Jackson. "This prosecution was and this prosecution is righteous," he said, an apparent rebuke to criticism made by some, including Trump, of the motivations of the original trial team.
Trump, who repeatedly railed against the special counsel investigation into his campaign's ties to Russia, has questioned the motivation behind Stone's prosecution. The president has seized on the participation of two prosecutors on Special Counsel Robert Mueller III's team—Aaron Zelinsky and Adam Jed—and also trained his Twitter ire on Jackson as she has presided over several cases stemming from the Russia investigation.
Without naming Trump, Jackson spoke out against the president's public commentary on Stone's case, labeling it "entirely inappropriate" and declaring that "the court cannot be influenced by those comments."
"The system, for good reasons, demands the responsibility falls to" a neutral party, Jackson said of sentencing. "Not someone who has a long-standing friendship with the defendant, not someone whose political career was helped by the defendant. And certainly not someone" involved in the underlying facts of the case.
Jackson sentenced Stone to 40 months in prison for lying to the House Intelligence Committee as part of its Russia probe, impeding its investigation and witness tampering. But, following a string of pardons and commutations earlier this week, there is widespread speculation that Trump might soon pardon his longtime friend.
In extended, animated remarks leading up to her announcement of Stone's sentence, Jackson said Stone's penalty should transcend politics. His crimes, she said, cut to the core of the Constitution and the institutions it created, including Congress and the judiciary.
She noted that Stone's lying to Congress took place while the federal government was under Republican control, undermining his and others' claims that the longtime GOP operative was a political target.
And in doing so, she echoed a line delivered by one of the original Stone prosecutors, Michael Marando, as he told Stone's jury during closing arguments in November that the "truth still matters."
"The truth still exists," Jackson said Thursday. "The truth still matters."
|Read more:
'Flagrant Disregard for the Institutions of Government': Stone Sentenced to Over 3 Years
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All3rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute read'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Houston Judge Exonerated on Appeal, Public Reprimand Vacated
- 2Bar Report - Dec. 30
- 3Employment Law Developments to Expect From the Second Trump Administration
- 4How I Made Law Firm Leadership: 'It’s Imperative That You Never Stop Learning,' Says Ian Ribald of Ballard Spahr
- 5People in the News—Dec. 30, 2024—Pond Lehocky, Buchanan Ingersoll
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250