The full text of Judge Emmet Sullivan’s Friday, November 28, order in the Ted Stevens case reads as follows:
“MINUTE ORDER as to THEODORE F. STEVENS. The Court, sua sponte, cancels the hearing scheduled for December 1, 2008. The government is directed to file a response to the defendant’s Motion to Access Government Filing and for Consideration of Additional Remedies by no later than December 15, 2008. The government shall also address any reasons why the Court should not strike the government’s ex parte pleading for failure to comply with Local Criminal Rule 49.1(h). The Court notes it has reminded the government of LCrR 49.1(h) in the past with respect to sealed filings in this case. See, e.g., MINUTE ORDER dated September 4, 2008. The defendant’s reply shall be filed December 29, 2008. A hearing is scheduled on the pending motions for January 15, 2009 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 28, 2008.”
How did we get here? To recap, on November 15, government witness David Anderson sent a post-verdict letter to the Court alleging that some of his trial testimony was false and that the government knew it was false. (The government had been forced to call Anderson to the stand after Judge Sullivan struck Anderson’s time sheets from the record based on the government’s failure to disclose exculpatory information to the defense concerning Anderson’s work history.) Anderson’s letter apparently arrived at the Court on November 20. Judge Sullivan entered Anderson’s letter into the record on November 21. Later that day, the defense filed a motion for discovery and an evidentiary hearing regarding Anderson’s allegations.
Even later that day, the government filed an initial response, promising to respond more fully by November 24. November 24 came and went, seemingly without a government filing. But that’s because the government made its filing on that date ex parte. On November 25, the Court set a “brief hearing” on the defense’s motion, for Monday, Decmber 1 at 10:30. On November 26, the Court issued a new order changing the hearing to a staus conference.
Also on the 26th, the defense filed a motion for access to the government’s allegedly unauthorized November 24 ex parte filing, and for additional remedies, contending that: “The government’s unilateral ex parte communication with the Court is a clear violation of the rules. The ex parte filing should be rejected; its contents should be disclosed to defense counsel; and the Court should consider whether other remedies are appropriate.” The defense maintained that the government should have informed the defense of its intent to file an ex parte motion ahead of time, so that the defense could have litigated the issue with the Court. It looks from the wording of yesterday’s order as if the Court is inclined to agree with the defense. The Anchorage Daily News has a story about the latest developments here.
