Judy G. Russell
April 13th, 2007, 12:13 PM
On April 5th, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Easterbrook, appointed by Reagan; Bauer, appointed by Nixon; Wood, appointed by Clinton) heard the appeal of a civil service worker from Wisconsin who was prosecuted by the Bush-appointed US Attorney out there just in time for the case to be useful in the tightly-contested race for Governor there. The defendant, Georgia Thompson, was alleged to have steered a contract to one in-state vendor because, politically, "her bosses" wanted it.
At oral argument (http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/070405_Thompson_Dismissal.mp3) (a 26-minute argument), it became clear that this woman did not work directly for the Governor, had no idea of any political connection between the vendor and the Governor (the vendor had given a perfectly legal campaign contribution to the Governor; neither of whom were charged, of course), had not expected a benefit for recommending the in-state vendor over out-of-state vendors, didn't get a benefit, and was prosecuted on a theory that would let the Government charge a crime if she had voted for a vendor because she liked the way the vendor looked, with not even a hint of corruption involved.
Not only was the woman prosecuted, but when the jury returned the conviction, the US Attorney there refused to consent to bail pending appeal -- a totally ordinary request in a white-collar crime case and one that is routinely granted. So off to jail she went, that day. And there she stayed, until April 5th.
Immediately after hearing the argument, the three members of the Court of Appeals unanimously entered an order reversing the conviction, directing the entry of a judgment of acquittal and directing the Government to get that poor woman out of jail that day. Now that is extraordinary. An appeals court usually waits to write an opinion, then orders compliance with the opinion. Entering an order like that is way out of the usual course.
So when someone asks why we are concerned about politicizing the office of the United States Attorney, think about the price paid by people like Georgia Thompson. And when someone asks what's being done by the prosecutors who were not fired, think about Georgia Thompson.
At oral argument (http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/070405_Thompson_Dismissal.mp3) (a 26-minute argument), it became clear that this woman did not work directly for the Governor, had no idea of any political connection between the vendor and the Governor (the vendor had given a perfectly legal campaign contribution to the Governor; neither of whom were charged, of course), had not expected a benefit for recommending the in-state vendor over out-of-state vendors, didn't get a benefit, and was prosecuted on a theory that would let the Government charge a crime if she had voted for a vendor because she liked the way the vendor looked, with not even a hint of corruption involved.
Not only was the woman prosecuted, but when the jury returned the conviction, the US Attorney there refused to consent to bail pending appeal -- a totally ordinary request in a white-collar crime case and one that is routinely granted. So off to jail she went, that day. And there she stayed, until April 5th.
Immediately after hearing the argument, the three members of the Court of Appeals unanimously entered an order reversing the conviction, directing the entry of a judgment of acquittal and directing the Government to get that poor woman out of jail that day. Now that is extraordinary. An appeals court usually waits to write an opinion, then orders compliance with the opinion. Entering an order like that is way out of the usual course.
So when someone asks why we are concerned about politicizing the office of the United States Attorney, think about the price paid by people like Georgia Thompson. And when someone asks what's being done by the prosecutors who were not fired, think about Georgia Thompson.