Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Stevens Contempt Opinion

Stevens Contempt Opinion

Ratings: (0)|Views: 528|Likes:
Published by MainJustice

More info:

Published by: MainJustice on Oct 12, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 ______________________________))IN RE CONTEMPT FINDING IN )) Misc. No. 09-mc-273 (EGS)
)) ______________________________)
Pending before the Court is Patty Merkamp Stemler’s motionto vacate this Court’s February 13, 2009 contempt finding in
United States v. Theodore F. Stevens
On that date, the Courtheld Ms. Stemler and two other senior government attorneys incontempt for violation of the Court’s January 21, 2009 Order toproduce certain information to the Court and to the defendant,Senator Stevens. Upon consideration of Ms. Stemler’s motion,the accompanying memorandum of law and supporting declarations,the entire record in the
case, and for the reasons setforth in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court concludes that themotion to vacate the original contempt finding is
.Nevertheless, because the government later complied with the
On April 7, 2009, the Court appointed a special prosecutor,Henry F. Schuelke III, “to investigate and prosecute suchcriminal contempt proceedings as may be appropriate against” theoriginal prosecution team. Case No. 08-231, Doc. No. 375, Orderof April 7, 2009. The Court wishes to be clear that Ms. Stemlerwas not one of the attorneys identified as part of thatinvestigation, and this civil contempt finding was unrelated tothe events that led to the appointment of Mr. Schuelke.
Case 1:09-mc-00273-EGS Document 8 Filed 10/12/10 Page 1 of 26
2Court’s January 21, 2009 Order and purged the contumaciousconduct, the Court finds that the contempt has been lifted.Moreover, as the Court finds it unnecessary to impose sanctionsrelated to its original contempt finding, there remains nothingmore for the Court to resolve and this matter is hereby
Beginning in December 2008, Ms. Stemler, a senior attorneywith the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”),represented the United States in the
case. During thattime, Ms. Stemler, along with several other senior DOJattorneys, was extensively and directly involved with mattersrelated to a complaint filed by FBI Special Agent Chad Joy,which raised serious allegations of prosecutorial andgovernmental misconduct in the investigation and trial ofSenator Stevens (the “Joy Complaint”).As explained herein, based on the record and Ms. Stemler’sown pleadings and declarations, it is undisputed that (i) Ms.Stemler was aware of the Court’s January 21, 2009 Order and thegovernment’s obligation to produce certain information to thedefendant; (ii) she understood that the Order required thegovernment to produce that information to the defendant; and(iii) she knew that the defendant had filed a motion to hold thegovernment in contempt for violating the Court’s January 21,
Case 1:09-mc-00273-EGS Document 8 Filed 10/12/10 Page 2 of 26
32009 Order. Nevertheless, at a hearing on February 13, 2009,the government acknowledged that it had not produced theinformation to the defendant pursuant to the Court’s January 21,2009 Order. Moreover, the government’s attorneys, including Ms.Stemler, offered no excuse or reason for their failure to complywith that Order. Accordingly, because Ms. Stemler and hercolleagues were, in fact, in contempt of the Court on February13, 2009, the Court will not vacate its original contemptfinding. Ms. Stemler’s motion is therefore
.The Court notes, however, that the government did belatedlyproduce the relevant information to the defendant following theCourt’s contempt finding, and therefore the contempt has beenpurged.
See, e.g.
Int’l Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell
,512 U.S. 821, 828 (1994) (civil contempt is a coercive tool, andthus a contemnor may purge the contempt by complying with theunderlying court order);
NLRB v. Blevins Popcorn Co.
, 659 F.2d1173, 1184 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (explaining that following thedisobedience of a court’s order, the court may issue “aconditional order finding the recalcitrant party in contempt andthreatening to impose a specified penalty unless therecalcitrant party purges itself of contempt by complying withprescribed purgation conditions”). Because the purgationconditions were fulfilled, the Court does not believe thatsanctions based on this civil contempt finding are necessary or
Case 1:09-mc-00273-EGS Document 8 Filed 10/12/10 Page 3 of 26

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
puretrust liked this
puretrust liked this
puretrust liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->