Sunday, April 17, 2011
Appellant in the Kott case (see background here) filed a petition for panel rehearing. The court in this case vacated the conviction and sent the case back to the trial court for retrial. This case was related to the prosecution of now-deceased Senator Ted Stevens (Alaska). In vacating Kott's conviction, the panel noted that the case involved a Brady violation by the government. The majority in the case noted that "because we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude the prosecution 'acted flagrantly, willfully, [or] in bad faith,' we do not exercise our supervisory authority to dismiss the indictment."
Appellant argues that "the reason that the record might lack 'sufficient evidence' of willful, flagrant, bad faith, suppression of evidence is that the government is still withholding that evidence -- not because such evidence does not exist." Is the government still withholding evidence from the defense? More importantly, did the government engage in conduct of requesting a local police department to stop the investigation of "sexually predatory acts on minor girls," in order to "bar the creation of Brady evidence it might have to disclose ..."?
Looking forward to seeing the government's response.