Monday, April 13, 2009

Another Case at Prosecutorial Miscounduct?

Today, in a possible black-eye to the Rove Republican Racket, a convicted mayor in Connecticut, Joseph Ganim, is seeking review of his case for alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

It seems U.S. Attorneys withheld evidence and offered witnesses "sweetheart" deals. With the Stevens case now wide-open, the Rove-Bush-Cheney Administration was more interested in putting political participants away in jail instead of following the proper, ethical, and legal avenues to convict.

Regardless of Ganim's innocence or guilt, the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are stunning.

In today's Connecticut Post, Michael P. Mayko writes:

Ganim was convicted in March 2003 on 16 federal corruption charges and sentenced to nine years in prison. His scheduled release date is July 11, 2011. The two key witnesses against him were Paul Pinto, his former fundraiser and close friend, and Leonard Grimaldi, his former campaign manager. Both pleaded guilty to charges, testified against Ganim and served federal prison time. In his complaints, Ganim claims [U.S. Attorneys] suppressed "important impeachment evidence" and used "perjured testimony regarding undisclosed benefits to key government witnesses." Ganim claims those benefits included foregoing U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton's sentence ordering Paul Pinto, once Ganim's close friend, to forfeit $400,000 by instead applying the money to other financial obligations. He points out Pinto also was allowed to keep his retirement account and his home at The Circle in Easton. The former five-term mayor claims the prosecution also disregarded...[the] sentence of Grimaldi by cutting a deal in which he paid only $104,895 of the $671,288 owed in federal income taxes for himself and his government relations company. "If the IRS did not approve the actions of the U.S. Attorney's office," Ganim wrote that agency's Office of Professional Responsibility, "I would request that your office conduct an investigation of this egregious conduct on the part of the U.S. Attorney's office. It is apparent Mr. Grimaldi was well motivated to lie in his testimony when the U.S. Attorney's office was both eliminating the Grimaldi forfeiture of $175,000 and the remaining balance of the income taxes owed. Added to this amount are taxes owed on the $40,000 plus profit gained by Grimaldi from the sale of his house which the U.S. Attorney's office allowed him to keep."