U.S. attorneys need legal restraints BY ANDREW GREELEY

U.S. attorneys need legal restraints BY ANDREW GREELEY
Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
March 23, 2007

Years ago, a U.S. attorney said to me: ''We can indict anybody on La Salle Street we want. Maybe it would be more difficult to get a conviction, but we still have the power to ruin him.'' Justice Robert H. Jackson, one of the Supreme Court's greats in the 20th century, warned of the power of the federal prosecutor when he said that the power is enormous and easily perverted. ''The prosecutor,'' Jackson said in 1940 when he was U.S. attorney general, ''has more power over life, liberty and reputation than any other person in America. That power must be shielded from politics and even from the Department of Justice.''

The federal prosecutor has at his disposal deep pockets of money, the support of the FBI and easy access to the media, especially when indicting someone. The accused often is assumed guilty on the day he is indicted -- especially if he doesn't have large financial resources.

Thus, U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski was indicted by a federal attorney and had to face a jury not of his peers (who live in Illinois) but of citizens of the District of Columbia who might easily resent a pushy and powerful Chicago Pole. His funds ran out before the trial began and he had to accept a plea bargain. Fighting a U.S. attorney is like fighting City Hall -- any city hall.

Gov. George Ryan, who obviously is not a rich man, could not have defended himself if his legal counsel abandoned him when his money ran out. The law firm this time around was willing to pick up the tab.

James R. Thompson became famous when he indicted former Illinois Gov. Otto Kerner on what some of his lawyers later admitted was only a technical offense. He used that fame to become governor of Illinois. Convict a governor so you can run for governor yourself.

That's what you call a political trial.

More recently, the conviction of George Ryan was marked by the ludicrous behavior of some of the jurors. The appellate court suspended a prison sentence until Ryan's appeal is heard, suggesting, according to some lawyers, that the appellate judges think they may have to overturn the conviction. Ironically, it is former Gov. Thompson's own firm that defended Gov. Ryan pro bono.

New York U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani became famous for sending some financial leaders to jail. A bright, ambitious young lawyer can manipulate his time as U.S. attorney to create a launching pad. That some of Giuliani's convictions were overturned was not big enough news to obtain national attention.

Do you want to become governor, mayor, or even president? The best way, it often seems, is to indict high-profile politicians and businessmen.

Now it develops that, while the U.S. attorney is allegedly independent, he is subject to political pressure from his political party and the White House. Carol Lam, who sent Republican Rep. Randy ''Duke'' Cunningham to prison, was threatened with ''woodshedding'' by a White House agent. Most of the others who were replaced had offended public officials from their state for not using their office for political goals of the party. In the present administration, a U.S. attorney apparently is responsible not only for enforcing the law, he must also accede to the demands of political hacks like Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) if he wants to keep his job.

A federal attorney not only may use his office to indict political opponents, but he may also be used by an administration to pursue its own political goals. Thus, he serves at the pleasure of the president (and the Karl Roves around him), but he is also expected to do some of the party's dirty work if he wants to contribute to the president's pleasure.

Perhaps Congress could bar a former U.S. attorney from running for office until five years after his term is over and make it a crime for an elected official to try to pressure a U.S. attorney. Moreover, a president might be constrained to keep such an attorney in office for a five-year term, unless he permits a public review of the reasons for removing him.

Without such a reform, we all have reason to fear this person who has so much power over the lives, the liberty and the reputations of all of us.