2023 Investigative Summary 13

INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT AND LACK OF CANDOR

A U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) reported to OPR a judicial finding dismissing without prejudice an indictment that was returned after expiration of the Speedy Trial Act (STA) deadline requiring that an information or indictment be filed within 30 days when a defendant has been arrested on a complaint.  The USAO also reported that the AUSA handling the case had not informed her supervisors of the Speedy Trial Act violation, the resulting litigation, or the court’s dismissal.  During OPR’s investigation, the AUSA disclosed to OPR that she had violated the STA’s pre-indictment deadline in three additional pending cases.  OPR concluded that the AUSA violated the STA in the four cases and, in doing so, recklessly violated her obligation under the rules of professional conduct to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.  OPR also concluded that by neglecting the deadlines, the AUSA recklessly violated Department and USAO policies and district court rules.  In addition, OPR concluded that the AUSA intentionally violated her obligations under the rules of professional conduct and Department and USAO policies by failing to inform her supervisors of the STA violations and, in the initially reported case, by obtaining an indictment without the required supervisory approval and by failing to inform her supervisors of the ensuing litigation and dismissal.

Shortly after OPR issued its final report of investigation, the USAO informed OPR that it had reviewed the AUSA’s pending cases and discovered that she had violated the STA in 17 additional cases from 2019 to 2023.  OPR conducted a supplemental investigation and found that the AUSA had made numerous statements to OPR and others that concealed the additional violations.  OPR concluded that the AUSA violated the STA in each of the additional 17 cases and, in doing so, recklessly violated her obligation under the rules of professional conduct to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.  OPR also concluded that by neglecting the deadlines, the AUSA recklessly violated Department and USAO policies and district court rules.  In addition, OPR concluded that the AUSA intentionally violated her obligations under the rules of professional conduct and Department and USAO policies by failing to inform her supervisors of the STA violations and violated USAO approval policies by obtaining a plea and a dismissal without management’s authorization.  Finally, OPR concluded that the AUSA misled OPR, court personnel, and the USAO in violation of the duty of candor imposed by rules of professional conduct governing attorney conduct and rules pertaining to federal employees.  OPR referred its findings to the Professional Misconduct Review Unit.