The TLS has a devastating review of Preet Bharara's book Doing Justice, by Clive Stafford Smith. The review dismantles the central stories of the book, and casts bright light on the ideological stance adopted by Bharara. Smith is defense lawyer, and knowlegdeable about the legal processes and cases Bharara discusses. It is in contrast the general run of reviews, which take Bharar at face value, never looking past the pages. Even in places one could reasonably expect to do a critical job, there has been nothing much like Smith's work. It is, I think, the result of two sources of influence ont he reviewers. First, Bharara has somehow triggered the wrath of Trump. Maybe a hint that he would investigate some of the criminal conduct of Trump. Not that Bharara ever in fact did, and certainly never before Trump ascended to the Presidency. But now Bharara is on the side of political good, so not too strong a critical examination. The other source is the general tendency to accept the statements of prosecutorial authorities, to consider prosecutors golden-souled. Upright and sacrificing. It is just the way the politics of it work.
One short bit from the review. Brandon Mayfield was implicated by the FBI and US Attorneys in the 2004 Madrid train bombing. The Madrid bombing resulted in 193 dead and 2,000 injured. He was arrested and held for two weeks as a material witness, suspected of participation. The arrest was, purportedly, based on finding Mayfield's fingerprint to "latent fingerprint 17" at the scene. "Bharara then describes the facts that led the FBI to think that Mayfield was their man: he “had married a Muslim immigrant from Egypt. Not only that but he himself had converted to Islam. Not only that, but he frequented a particular mosque in Beaverton, Oregon, that had received attention from local authorities”." I won't repeat the whole section from Smith, but only a couple of points. But let's stop here and look at what Bharara offers up as the basis to arrest Mayfield. He is Muslim. None of this is even relevant to whether Mayfield was involved in the bombing. At every point something of the sort is offered. There was no fingerprint 17 and there was no match. And then this, which I found astonishing: "Other factors ignored by the FBI – and which Bharara does not mention – are Mayfield’s patriotism, his nine years’ service in the US military, and one piece of rather compelling information, readily checked through Homeland Security records: that he had not travelled outside North America in more than a decade and could therefore not have been in Madrid for the bombing." That Mayfield never left the country is not a problem?
Two points. The procedural and intellectual travesty is, or rather ought to be, literally astonishing. If it were not so entirely ordinary. And, second, Bahara cannot admit any of it. He cannot admit that Mayfield should never have been dragged in, that he was innocent, that the whole thing was, plainly, a complete failure on the side of the FBI and US Attorneys involved. He cannot admit error.
When the Utah Appellate Practice Section invited a national speaker annually, someone of particular note in the appellate practice world, about half of those invited were appellate lawyers for the government. I had the same question for each of the speakers. When i arranged the speaker, it was one of the questions I suggested they consider as a theme for their talk. What do you do when your case is wrong, or a dead loser. Over the years, we got exactly zero answers from the government lawyers. Even in conversation I could not get an acknowledgement that any such case even existed.
Recent Comments