Split Decision In Prosecution Of Chandra Levy Prosecutors

A District of Columbia Hearing Committee proposes sanctioning one of two accused prosecuting attorneys charged with disclosure violations in a high-profile criminal case

Congressional intern Chandra Levy disappeared in 2001. Because of her alleged affair with a sitting Congressman, public interest in the case was extensive, both at the time she vanished and after her remains were found in Rock Creek Park a year later.

Respondents Amanda Haines and Fernando Campoamor-Sanchez were Assistant United States Attorneys responsible for prosecuting Ingmar Guandique, who was tried, convicted, and sentenced to a lengthy imprisonment for the Levy murder. His conviction was later set aside, and the government agreed to dismiss the charges against him.

Disciplinary Counsel contends that Respondents failed to provide Guandique’s attorneys with information that tended to discredit a key government witness, and charged them with violating D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 3.8(e) (intentional failure to disclose information that tends to negate the guilt of the accused) and 8.4(d) (serious interference with the administration of justice). Respondent Haines is also charged with disclosing client confidences in violation of Rule 1.6(a) (knowing disclosure of client confidence or secret).

We find that Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent Haines violated Rules 3.8(e), 8.4(d) and 1.6(a). See Board Rule 11.6; In re Cater, 887 A.2d 1, 24 (D.C. 2005). We also conclude that Disciplinary Counsel failed clearly and convincingly to prove that Respondent CampoamorSanchez committed any Rule violation. Accordingly, and for the reasons discussed herein, we recommend that Respondent Haines be suspended for ninety days, and that the charges against Respondent Campoamor-Sanchez be dismissed.

The key disputed issue was whether the first page of a document - which contained information about the principal government witness - had been turned over to defense counsel.

The committee credited the testimony of defense counsel that it had not

A reasonable prosecutor in Respondent Haines’s position, adhering to the standards of the Justice Department and USAO and to the admonitions in Zanders, would have disclosed the first page of the Zaldivar letter to defense no later than two weeks before the start of trial.

Respondent Haines also violated the duty of confidentiality

On November 8, 2010 and November 14, 2010, Respondent Haines forwarded the emails [concerning trial strategy and division of labor] to her boyfriend, who was not employed by the USAO or the Department of Justice. Those emails contained confidential and secret information related to the strategy for prosecuting the Guandique case. DCX 32; Haines Stip. 1.

No one from the USAO gave Respondent Haines permission to disclose the confidences and secrets contained in those emails.

(Mike Frisch)