Subverting Brady v. Maryland and Denying a Fair Trial: Studying the Schuelke Report

Abstract

The Schuelke Report about the ill-fated federal prosecution of the late-Senator Ted Stevens is an extraordinary contribution to criminal procedure. No other official documentation or investigative study of a criminal prosecution to my knowledge has dissected and analyzed as carefully and thoroughly the sordid and clandestine actions of a team of prosecutors who zealously wanted to win a criminal conviction at all costs. In examining this Report, one gets the feeling that as the investigation and prosecution of Senator Stevens unfolded, and the prosecution’s theory of guilt unraveled, the prosecutors became indifferent whether the defendant was really guilty; they just wanted to convict him. Based on depositions of these prosecutors, their emails, notes, memos, conversations, court filings, transcripts of testimony, and oral arguments, the Schuelke Report methodically and exhaustively documents the way these prosecutors manipulated flimsy, ambiguous, and unfavorable evidence, systematically concealed exculpatory evidence from the defense and the jury, and thwarted defense attempts to locate that evidence in order to convict a United States Senator and destroy his career.