April 7, 2009, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia unleashed his fury before a packed
courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He fumed. “In
nearly 25 years on the bench,” he said, “I’ve never
seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve
seen in this case.”
It was the culmination of a disastrous prosecution: the public corruption
case against former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK).
Stevens was convicted in October 2008 of violating federal ethics laws
by failing to report thousands of dollars in gifts he received from
friends. But a team of prosecutors from the U.S. Department of Justice
is accused of failing to hand over key exculpatory evidence and knowingly
presenting false evidence to the jury.
The Stevens case is a cautionary tale. It reminds lawyers and nonlawyers
alike of the power and failures of our legal system and those who have
sworn to uphold the rule of law. At the center of the story are real
people: an old and powerful politician, a crack defense team, determined
prosecutors, and their supervisors.
“This is a fascinating case study for all lawyers,” says
criminal defense lawyer Stanley M. Brand, a partner at Brand Law Group,
P.C. “In these high-stakes cases, both sides can get pretty aggressive
and push the envelope. It’s great to be aggressive—it’s
great to push, but this case reminds people that they have to observe
the limits and the rules.”
For months Judge Sullivan had warned U.S. prosecutors about their
repeated failure to turn over evidence. Then, after the jury convicted
Stevens, the Justice Department discovered previously unrevealed evidence.
Meanwhile, a prosecution witness and an agent from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) came forward alleging prosecutorial misconduct.
Finally, newly appointed U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced
that he had had enough and recommended that the seven-count conviction
against the former Alaska senator be dismissed.
On April 7, Judge Sullivan did just that. But he was far from done.
In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors’
handling of the case. Judge Sullivan insisted that the misconduct allegations
were “too serious and too numerous” to be left to an internal
Justice Department investigation. He appointed Washington lawyer Henry
F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate whether
members of the trial team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt.
“It’s obviously a serious and not-everyday occurrence
for a judge to sic an independent counsel on prosecutors,” Brand
says. “It’s an auger for the Justice Department. This judge’s
tolerance was pushed to the limit, and prosecutors are not going to
just go on their merry way. When judges do things like this, it tends
to rattle the system a bit.”
With two investigations pending—one court-appointed, the other
conducted by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility—Justice
Department officials say they are reviewing current discovery practices
and retraining lawyers on their discovery obligations. It remains to
be seen what consequences, if any, the prosecutors in this case will
“If all of our lives and careers were defined by our mistakes,
nobody would have a job, so you hate to think that one mistake—even
if it happens to be a highly publicized one—would damage someone’s
career,” says Michael E. O’Neill, an associate professor
who specializes in criminal law, criminal procedure, and constitutional
law at George Mason University School of Law. “That said, prosecutors
have to be absolutely fair and above board to ensure that justice is
Brendan V. Sullivan Jr., Stevens’ defense lawyer and a senior
partner at Williams & Connolly LLP, described the misconduct of
prosecutors as “stunning.” He says the case is a sad story
and a warning to everyone that any citizen can be convicted “if
prosecutors are hell-bent on ignoring the Constitution and willing to
present false evidence.”
But Assistant U.S. Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, head of the Justice
Department’s Criminal Division, says in a statement, “As
we move forward in the continuing fight against public corruption, it
is essential that the Criminal Division learns from the Stevens prosecution
and its aftermath.”
Balance of Power
It is a common occurrence, especially in criminal cases: Lawyers who
are battling it out in court push for every procedural advantage; they
overstep their bounds and must be reined back in by the judge. There
often are accusations that one side or the other is failing to produce
evidence. But in the Stevens case, transcripts of multiple hearings
show Judge Sullivan continuously reprimanding prosecutors for withholding
Over the past few years, a series of high-profile scandals have rocked
the Justice Department. For example, the department faced public outrage
over its hiring process for U.S. attorneys under former Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales, the revelation of the Justice Department’s role
in the so-called “torture memos,” and ongoing questions
about aggressive prosecutorial tactics. For some, the Stevens case represents
a government entity that had developed a “total indifference to
“This has built up over the years—the people at [the Justice
Department] have come to believe that they are immune, that nobody can
touch them, and that judges will ignore their prosecutorial misconduct,”
says Joseph E. diGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia
and a founding partner and criminal defense attorney at diGenova &
Concerns also have been expressed about the timing of the Stevens
case, with the indictment coming just months before Stevens was up for
reelection in his home state. The jury verdict against Stevens came
eight days before Election Day. Subsequently, he lost to Democrat Mark
Begich in an extraordinarily close contest, the effects of which benefit
the Democrats. There are 60 members in the Senate’s Democratic
Caucus, giving the party a firewall against bill-derailing filibusters.
Had Stevens been able to keep his seat, Democrats would have 59 members,
one short of the key 60-member vote.
DiGenova says that the “consequences of what the prosecutors
did are remarkable” and the harm incalculable. “Had things
been different, Stevens would have been elected. Prosecutors actually
determined the outcome of the balance of power in the U.S. Senate by
their misconduct. They affected politics in the United States,”
The Justice Department probe into Stevens and other Alaskan officials,
known as Operation Polar Pen, lasted several years. Lawyers from Washington
fought with lawyers from Alaska over how to handle the case and whether
to bring charges in Alaska or the District of Columbia.
Some observers blame the subsequent problems in part on the lawyers’
personal conflicts and poor management. Others suggest that the Justice
Department lawyers were no match for the stars that formed the defense
team—they knew it and felt pressure to find any advantage they
But in actuality, some of the Justice Department’s finest lawyers
handled the case. The trial team was part of an elite group of prosecutors
in the Public Integrity (PIN) Section, with experience pursuing high-profile
and complex cases.
The PIN Section, which comprises about 30 lawyers, investigates and
prosecutes corruption in all levels of government. Between 2001 and
2007, it brought public corruption charges against 416 individuals,
winning 371 convictions. And just recently, the section was praised
for its investigation of Washington lobbyist and convicted felon Jack
Seasoned litigator Brenda K. Morris, principal deputy chief of the
PIN Section, was not assigned to the prosecution team until late into
the investigation. A native Washingtonian, Morris received her juris
doctor from Howard University and trained as a prosecutor in the New
York County District Attorney’s Office. She moved back to Washington,
D.C., and joined the PIN Section in 1991. Promoted in 2004, Morris supervised
high-profile cases, including the Abramoff probe and a series of cases
involving the theft of funds meant for the Iraqi reconstruction. She
is also an adjunct law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.
Brand, who has opposed her in cases, describes Morris as “fair,
forthright, and sensitive to the facts.”
Chuck Rosenberg, Morris’ lawyer and a partner at Hogan &
Hartson LLP, declined comment.
The rest of the prosecution team included Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward
P. Sullivan, Washington, D.C.-based trial lawyers. And then there were
the Alaska-based lawyers, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph W. Bottini
and James A. Goeke.
Overseeing the case as supervisory attorney was William M. Welch II,
chief of the PIN Section. Welch grew up in Massachusetts, the son of
a local judge. He received his law degree from Northwestern University
School of Law and worked in several parts of the Justice Department,
including the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Springfield, Massachusetts.
There, Welch made his name prosecuting a serial killer nurse and Springfield
City administrators for corruption. In 2006 Welch was recruited to Washington,
D.C., and has been the head of the section since 2007. Prior to the
Stevens meltdown, Welch allegedly was angling to be the U.S. Attorney
“Bill is the hardest working prosecutor I’ve ever worked
with,” says Kevin J. Cloherty, a former supervisory attorney at
the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts. “He is of the
highest ethical standards and is dedicated to public service and doing
the right thing.”
Stevens was represented by Brendan Sullivan and Robert M. Cary, along
with a team of nine other lawyers, two paralegals, and an information
technology professional. Well known for his legal finesse and trial
skills, Brendan Sullivan is at ease in the public spotlight. His legal
career includes defending Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North and former
U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros. Sullivan
is famous for uttering the lines, “I’m not a potted plant.
I’m here as the lawyer. That’s my job,” during a congressional
hearing in the Iran-Contra Affair.
Brendan Sullivan has “a sort of quiet presence, but he has strength
in his voice and can modulate—raise it for a very important point,”
says Michael Madigan, a litigation partner at Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP and a former federal prosecutor. “He’s one
of the best lawyers in the country.”
The younger Cary, also a partner at Williams & Connolly, has represented
his share of prominent clients and teaches a trial advocacy class at
Georgetown University Law Center. Cary previously had worked with Brendan
Sullivan on several cases, including the defense of former Cendant Corporation
chair Walter Forbes in a fraud case.
In negotiations before trial, Stevens and his defense team refused
a plea agreement. Instead, they opted for their right to a speedy trial
in the hopes Stevens’ name could be cleared in time for him to
return to Alaska and win reelection. There were only 56 days between
indictment and trial.
“For us, it was simple,” Cary says. “We thought
we owed it to him to try to resolve the case before the election. It
may be the only time we’ve ever asked for a speedy trial.”
That made preparing for trial a relentless project. The trial team
worked on the case day and night, meeting twice a day over lunch and
Stevens, 84 when indicted, had been in Alaska politics since before
its statehood. As the longest-serving Republican in Congress, Stevens
wielded extraordinary power. A World War II veteran, Stevens earned
his law degree at Harvard Law School. He served as U.S. Attorney in
Fairbanks, Alaska, before moving on first to the Alaska House of Representatives
in 1964 and then the U.S. Senate in 1968.
Stevens’ clout in the Senate came from his longevity and his
position as chair of the Appropriations Committee until 2005. His home
sits at the base of Girdwood, Alaska, a ski resort. Once modest, the
chalet had been expanded and remodeled to encompass 10 rooms and three
A Friendly Letter
The crux of the prosecution case was that Stevens had failed to list
on Senate disclosure forms about $250,000 in goods and services he had
received, mostly in the remodeling of his home, from oil services company
VECO Corporation. For years VECO executives have been known to be top
contributors to Alaska politicians. Ultimately, the case hinged on the
testimony of Bill Allen, the senator’s personal friend pal—and
cofounder and former chief executive officer of VECO—who spearheaded
the remodeling project by hiring workers and providing the materials.
Allen testified at trial that he never billed his friend for work on
his house, and that Stevens knew he was getting special treatment.
Stevens was on the witness stand for three days. He said his wife
paid their bills, and that, living in Washington, he could not possibly
monitor the project.
Both sides fought over the meaning of an October 2002 letter from
Stevens to Allen asking for a bill.
The letter read:
Torricelli was a reference to Robert Torricelli, the former Democratic
U.S. congressman and senator from New Jersey who was accused of receiving
illicit gifts from a campaign donor.
Allen testified at trial that the note was Stevens’ effort of
“covering his ass.” Allen said on the stand that he had
been told by Stevens’ friend Bob Persons to ignore the letter
because the senator had written it to provide a false record to protect
“That was a devastating piece of testimony delivered right before
a break, as skillful lawyers do,” Cary says. “As bad luck
would have it, a juror got sick that afternoon, which meant that that
testimony was left to resonate with the jury for several days.”
As any law student knows, prosecutors must disclose any potentially
exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a case. The so-called Brady
Rule stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1963 decision in Brady
Throughout the trial, government and defense lawyers battled over
the Justice Department’s production of evidence. Judge Sullivan
considered declaring a mistrial, but he decided against it. On several
occasions, the judge admonished the prosecution and even struck the
use of certain evidence.
Prosecutors, Cary says, purposely produced discovery information late,
“in the middle of trial, when we had little time to incorporate
it into our strategy and use it effectively.”
Cary says the defense team was “incredibly distracted by the demands
of briefing all of the issues that came up due to the prosecutors’
failure to provide information to which we were entitled.”
According to court documents, prosecutors told defense counsel before
trial that Allen had said he believed Stevens would not pay the invoice.
However, two FBI reports, known as 302 Forms, contained contradictory
statements from Allen, in which he said he believed Stevens would
have paid the invoice. The defense did not initially receive the FBI
reports, even after court orders to turn over all Brady evidence. In
fact, one of Allen’s statements was actually redacted from a report
by an FBI agent before it was given to defense lawyers.
Finally, October 1, 2008, on the eve of Allen’s cross-examination
at around 11 p.m., prosecutors produced the 302s showing that Allen
had twice told the FBI he believed Stevens would have paid the invoice,
which was in direct conflict with his testimony at trial.
During a hearing the next day, Judge Sullivan scolded prosecutors
for failing to produce the evidence prior to trial and then stalling,
despite court orders to hand it over. Judge Sullivan said, “It
strikes me that this was probably intentional. I find it unbelievable
that this was just an error.”
Then came evidence that the government knowingly submitted false VECO
accounting records to establish the proposition that employee David
Anderson and others billed $188,000 for the renovations. The records
had been used by the prosecution to show the amount of time and money
spent on renovations to Stevens’ chalet—an important part
of proving that Stevens had received a benefit.
At yet another hearing, Judge Sullivan said, “It’s very
troubling that the government would utilize records that the government
knows were false.”
According to court hearings, the judge also was angry over evidence
that the prosecution sent a witness back to Alaska without informing
the judge or the defense.
Conviction and Fallout
The case took a strange turn when a juror disappeared, delaying deliberations
after weeks of trial testimony. The juror had said she needed to fly
to California because her father died, but Judge Sullivan was unable
to reach her to determine when she would return. An alternate juror
took her place. (In later proceedings, the juror admitted she had lied
about her father’s death and instead disappeared to go to the
On October 27, 2008, the jury found Stevens guilty of seven felonies.
Stevens did not talk to reporters, but he issued a defiant news release
accusing prosecutors of misconduct while declaring, “I will fight
this unjust verdict with every ounce of energy I have.”
The jurors left the courtroom without commenting to the media.
A day later, Brendan Sullivan wrote to then-U.S. Attorney General
Michael Mukasey, asking the Justice Department to “commence a
formal investigation into the repeated misconduct by federal prosecutors
in connection with this case.”
In November, Judge Sullivan received a letter from prosecution witness
Anderson, who had worked on Stevens’ chalet. Anderson wrote that
he falsely denied on the stand that he had an immunity deal with prosecutors
in exchange for his testimony. He also claimed prosecutors left him
in a room filled with confidential documents in an effort to coach him.
Anderson also claimed Allen had a contract to have him murdered.
The Justice Department has vehemently opposed Anderson’s allegations.
Then came the kicker. On December 2, 2008, FBI Special Agent Chad
Joy filed a whistleblower complaint stating that prosecutors tried to
hide a witness and intentionally withheld evidence from defense lawyers.
Joy further accused a fellow FBI agent of having an inappropriate relationship
“The week or so before Christmas, we had round-the-clock litigation
over whether Joy’s complaint would be made public or not,”
Cary says. “We took the position that it should all be made public.”
According to a transcript of a previously sealed court hearing, Morris
of the PIN Section argued that Joy’s name should not be revealed
nor should the complaint be made public. Judge Sullivan ultimately released
the complaint to the public with Joy’s name redacted. Subsequently,
the judge grew increasingly irate when the Justice Department changed
its position and said that since the complaint was made public, Joy’s
name should be revealed. After portions of the complaint were made public,
the Justice Department then argued that it would be easier to respond
in court filings if all the names were revealed. The Justice Department
also said Joy had no whistleblower status, but then it changed its mind
on that. In January 2009 Judge Sullivan made public the details, along
with Joy’s name. But Judge Sullivan was angry and wanted Mukasey
to submit a declaration.
The week before President Barack Obama’s inauguration, Judge
Sullivan demanded that Mukasey submit a declaration addressing who knew
what and when about Joy’s status as a whistleblower. The postconviction
scuffle continued, going as far as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, which issued a temporary stay.
Judge Sullivan ordered full discovery on Joy’s whistleblower
status. The Justice Department then made yet another error—prosecutors
only handed the discovery to the judge, not the defense.
“That was a court order. That wasn’t a request,”
Judge Sullivan said at a February 13 hearing. “I didn’t
ask for them out of the kindness of your hearts….Isn’t the
Department of Justice taking court orders seriously these days?”
Judge Sullivan then held Morris, Welch, and Patricia Stemler, chief
of the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section, in contempt of court
for failing to follow the court order to turn over documents.
At this point, the Justice Department removed its prosecutors from
the case and assigned a new team, which found additional evidence that
had never been handed to the defense.
On April Fools’ Day, U.S. Attorney General Holder announced that
the Justice Department would move to dismiss the indictment “in
the interest of justice.”
“After careful review, I have concluded that certain information
should have been provided to the defense for use at trial,” Holder
said in a statement.
On April 7, Judge Sullivan dismissed Stevens’ conviction and
ordered the Schuelke investigation. Schuelke, a partner at Janis, Schuelke
& Wechsler, served seven years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in
the District of Columbia before turning to private practice in 1979.
He declined comment for this story.
“Judge Sullivan is one of the most liked judges on the bench,”
says Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and constitutional
law professor at the George Washington University Law School. “He
is smart and courteous and even-keeled. To get Judge Sullivan that irate,
it takes monumental misconduct.”
The dismissal was announced, Stevens’ family sobbed, and Stevens
gave a raised-fist salute. The hearing ended with applause in the courtroom.
Outside the courthouse, Stevens posed for pictures with his family,
declaring, “I’m going to enjoy this wonderful day.”
Brady and Its Progeny
In Brady, a jury convicted the defendant of murder after the
state withheld a confession by a codefendant who admitted being the
killer. The Supreme Court held that withholding evidence violates due
process when the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment.
Subsequent cases have clarified the prosecutor’s duty to disclose.
In Giglio v. United States, the Supreme Court extended the
obligations of prosecutors to include impeachment evidence. Additionally,
the Jencks Act governs the production of statements of government witnesses.
However, defense attorneys and criminal procedure experts say that
prosecutors routinely provide information late and reluctantly. But
it is rare, they say, that a case is so riddled with apparent violations,
especially one that goes to the core of the case.
“Many cases have small Brady violations, but this is
something that is pretty extraordinary—an interview that directly
contradicts the testimony of the leading witness would have obviously
been used,” Turley says. “There’s no question it would
have undermined the credibility of the witness.”
Not surprisingly, Stevens’ lawyers are convinced that the failure
to disclose led to the conviction. “It’s our belief that
they never would have elicited that testimony from Bill Allen if they
knew we had this evidence at the time,” Cary says. “It was
the heart of the government’s case that there was a so-called
scheme to conceal information, and the letter went to the heart of our
defense that Senator Stevens was acting in good faith.
“It was our position that the ‘covering his ass’
testimony was a fabrication, and the notes that were produced months
after the trial proved that this was a fabrication. ”
One still-unanswered question is, Was there a deliberate intention
to withhold evidence, a series of mistakes, or some combination of motives?
George Mason University’s O’Neill describes intentional
Brady violations as relatively rare, but says that inadvertent
failure to turn over evidence is far more common “especially when
you have a lot of attorneys working on something, like a complicated
“It’s always possible that something could slip through
the cracks,” O’Neill says.
Some outside observers question whether the prosecutors’ zeal
got out of hand, and Welch looked the other way or even encouraged tactics
that may have crossed the line.
“It is fundamentally unfair to criticize Bill Welch for supervision
failures in connection with the Stevens discovery,” says his lawyer
Bill Taylor, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. “The head of
the Public Integrity Section, even in high-profile cases, does not get
involved in the management of discovery. The trial team consisted of
extremely experienced prosecutors who had been involved in the Polar
Pen cases from the beginning. He had no reason to believe they were
not complying with their constitutional obligations to turn over material
favorable to the accused.”
Matthew W. Friedrich, former head of the Justice Department’s
Criminal Division, approved Morris’ addition to the team around
the time of the indictment. Persons familiar with the trial team say
that Morris’ late arrival on the team—and questions over
who was to be in charge of the case—created tension. The other
four main lawyers previously had worked on other Polar Pen cases. Morris,
with more trial experience and a higher position at the Justice Department,
ended up taking on a larger role in the Stevens prosecution than some
involved in the case had initially anticipated.
“A smooth, almost seamless trial team is critical to the success
of any prosecution or defense,” Orrick’s Madigan says. “When
internal bickering or whatever causes the wheels to come off, disaster
is usually not far behind.”
Friedrich, now a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, declined
comment on the internal decision making, but says, “I have always
believed that Brenda Morris … is an outstanding attorney, with
enormous experience and integrity.”
Justice Out of Control?
As criminal defense attorneys are quick to point out, the Justice Department
has in the past decade been sullied by a series of high-profile case
implosions and accusations of misconduct across the board, from failing
to disclose evidence to using politics to choose what cases to pursue.
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the Justice Department aggressively
pursued terrorism cases, and some of them have since been entangled
in accusations of improper tactics. The PIN Section even ended up trying
to prosecute one of its own former terrorism prosecutors, Richard G.
Convertino, for withholding evidence in a trial.
In 2007 U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in New York described
as “outrageous and shocking” threats by the Justice Department
to indict KPMG LLP if the accounting firm paid the legal bills of its
employees. The Justice Department’s conduct pushed Kaplan to dismiss
criminal tax charges against former KPMG executives accused of participating
in an illegal tax shelter.
And in January 2009, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf in Boston said
that Justice Department prosecutors in Boston had a “dismal history”
of failing to produce exculpatory evidence.
“The Justice Department has a certain culture,” Turley
says. “It is commonplace for federal prosecutors to argue that
they couldn’t imagine why something is exculpatory when it is
obvious that it is.”
Some defense counsel say that part of the problem is that in recent
years the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility
has not provided an adequate check on conduct within the department.
H. Marshall Jarrett, a longtime Holder colleague, ran the Office of
Professional Responsibility for 10 years. In April, however, Jarrett
was reassigned to the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and Mary
Patrice Brown has taken the helm.
“[The Office of Professional Responsibility] has become known
as the Bermuda Triangle of complaints against prosecutors. They go in,
and they never go out,” diGenova says. “As a result, it’s
made a mockery of the accountability process, and every seasoned lawyer
knows it’s a mockery.”
There are new concerns about the propriety of the PIN Section. In
June the Justice Department requested the release from prison of two
former Alaska legislators after it was revealed the lawyers from the
Stevens team, excluding Morris, also failed to hand over evidence in
their cases. The Criminal Division is reviewing the prosecutors’
“There is a special obligation that the Public Integrity Section
has to act according to the highest ethical standards because they are
policing government conduct,” says Brand of the Brand Law Group.
In the months since Judge Sullivan dismissed the charges, Cary and Brendan
Sullivan have continued with their thriving legal practices. Stevens
is considering writing a book about his six terms in office.
The Justice Department awaits reports from both the Office of Professional
Responsibility and Schuelke’s investigation. In July Judge Sullivan
signed an order giving Schuelke the power to issue subpoenas.
As of this writing, Morris and Welch remain in their same roles. Prosecutors
Marsh and Edward Sullivan were transferred out of the PIN Section to
the Office of International Affairs. Bottini remains at the U.S. Attorney’s
Office in Alaska.
Some criminal defense lawyers say the case will have a lingering effect
on the justice system. “Our system of justice is built upon having
confidence that prosecutors are doing an honest and fair job,”
Madigan says. “If you start to lose confidence in them, it just
erodes the entire system of justice. It’s of enormous magnitude.”
But even the staunchest critics of the Justice Department admit that
it is still known for being home to skillful lawyers who take to heart
their job as trusted public servants.
In a July speech before the National Black Prosecutors Association,
Holder said the Justice Department is reviewing how it complies with
discovery obligations. “We will correct any errors and we will
see to it, once again, that justice is our primary goal,” he said.
“When we are wrong, we will admit our errors. When we see an affront
to justice, we will rectify the problem.”
Anna Stolley Persky wrote about the changing legal environment surrounding
stem cells in the January issue of Washington Lawyer.
 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83.
 Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).