A Well-Tried Case Nears Its Conclusion

I have had the opportunity to closely watch the hearings in the District of Columbia disciplinary case against former Assistant United States Attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff Muyskens over the past few days.

The allegations were reported by the Washington Post

In July, the D.C. Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility alleged Kerkhoff Muyskens hid key video evidence and made false statements about video evidence at least 12 times to judges, defense attorneys and even internal investigators at the Department of Justice.

The D.C. Bar case could result in her losing her law license, but that could take years.

The D.C. ACLU’s Interim Legal Director Michael Perloff called the Kerkhoff Muyskens case “an egregious example of prosecutorial misconduct.”

On Jan. 20, 2017, hundreds of protesters took to D.C.’s streets to protest Trump’s inauguration. D.C. police mass arrested more than 200 people, and many were later indicted on felony rioting charges.

Alexei Wood, one of the arrested protesters who was acquitted at trial, said Kerkhoff Muyskens, “really had absolutely nothing [at trial]. And she just kept going and going and going and going."

In court, not a single person was convicted, and dozens of cases were eventually dismissed.

In her denial filed Monday, Kerkhoff Muyskens, who is now an assistant U.S. attorney in Utah, acknowledged she was the prosecutor in the protest cases but denied any misconduct, paragraph by paragraph.

I have a few thoughts based on my observation of the proceedings.

First, this hearing committee (chaired by Paul Rosenzweig) did a superb job of conducting the proceedings. The hearing was focused and efficiently tried and a great deal of the credit goes to the committee and its chair.

As a result, a hearing that was scheduled to go on for another week will conclude tomorrow morning.

Second, the case very well tried by the parties with an absence of rancor and histrionics on either side.

Third, the Respondent carried herself with great dignity and was extremely impressive in her testimony denying bad faith and any intent to violate her discovery obligations,

It was particularly distressing to hear her recounting of the flood of abuse and threats directed to her and her family.

The cross-examination of Respondent will likely conclude tomorrow morning and the hearing committee will likely render its preliminary, non-binding conclusion as to the allegations after lunch.

I predict a finding of no misconduct.

My predictions are frequently wrong.

Update: Cross-examination has gone well into the afternoon session.

Second update: The hearing committee has made a preliminary, non-binding finding of at least one disciplinary rule violations. (Mike Frisch)