Former “Broadview Six” defendants, including Oak Park Village Trustee Brian Straw, and their attorneys left the Dirksen Courthouse Thursday with smiles and heads held high after a federal judge pushed for fact-finding into alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the case.
“I think the message that has been sent is that no one is above the law,” said Christopher Parente, Straw’s attorney, after the hearing.
U.S. District Judge April Perry heard arguments on Oct. 1 and pressed for more answers from U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros’ office about possible wrongdoings in the original case brought against the “Broadview Six” earlier this year and potential cover-up efforts to conceal the misconduct.
The federal prosecutors are expected to respond to a list of questions put forth by Perry by Nov. 2, and she made it clear she is “not reaching any conclusions” yet. However, “It’s quite clear to me several aspects of this prosecution are flawed,” said Perry.
“My sole focus is on the lack of candor and concealment of material facts that occurred before me,” said Perry.
She also told prosecutors that often “the cover-up is worse than the crime.”
There was a lengthy back-and-forth about the government’s expected cooperation in fact-finding with the federal prosecutors ultimately ending with “it depends” on the question and if the answer includes privileged information.
Judge Perry pushed back against that asking if it was going to be like shaking a “magic 8 ball” with which questions could or could not be answered.
She also quoted the famous line coined by an early Spider-Man comic, “With great power comes great responsibility,” adding the greater power means, “the less tolerant the court can be of defiance.”
She did not decide if a special prosecutor is needed to investigate Boutros and his staff, but it is not off the table.
Although Perry denied the former defendants motion for additional discovery in their separate discussion for appropriate financial compensation, she encouraged the two parties to reach a settlement agreement in the next month or she would “happy to schedule a settlement conference” herself.
Parente said the defense team was “very happy” with the results of the hearing and that he thinks “the judge is doing everything the right way.”
“They dragged these six people behind me, who did nothing wrong, through the mud for over a year, and now the tables have turned,” said Parente.
“Everything that we have seen indicates that they were not honest with the court, which is why they tried to redact their way out of this. They got caught, and just like their job is to hold people accountable, day in and day out, now it’s the court’s turn to hold the U.S. Attorney’s Office accountable for what they did to our clients. And they have to be held to that higher standard that they demand of all of us.”
There was a third decision to come out of Thursday’s hearing, allowing former Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheri Mecklenburg to intervene in the case citing she has relevant, material information regarding the alleged misconduct.
Mecklenburg retired “under protest” from her position last week to defend herself against “continuing allegations of ‘pervasive misconduct’” from Boutros’ office.
“As a current DOJ employee, I am prohibited from filing anything to defend myself and will be disciplined and/or terminated if I do so,” wrote Mecklenburg in her three-page resignation letter. “You have forced me to choose between remaining silent
while my professional reputation is destroyed and prematurely surrendering my cherished career.”
Parente said the biggest thing to come from allowing Mecklenburg to intervene “is it creates a live factual dispute between Andrew Boutros and his employee.”
“She was out of this early on, and we agree with what the judge said, the cover up is worse than the crime.” said Parente. “Ms. Mecklenburg made mistakes. I think she’s owned those mistakes.”
The hearing made it very clear there are a lot of unknowns in the case including legal precedents, as all parties involved try to sift through the uncharted waters.
Perry appointed William Baude, a professor of law at the University of Chicago’s Constitutional Law Institute, as an amicus for the case. An amicus means a “friend of the court” and is an independent person who serves to provide additional information and expertise on a matter before the court.
The next steps will be for the federal prosecutors to answer the questions presented by Perry and the former defendants and prosecutors to reach a financial settlement agreement by Nov. 2.