By
Keith L. Alexander (TWP)
Few homicides have gripped the District, even the nation, as much as the killing of Chandra Levy, a 24-year-old Washington intern with the Federal Bureau of Prisons who was having an affair with a married congressman when she disappeared in 2001.
Levy’s skeletal remains were found in Rock Creek Park about a year later, but it wasn’t until 2009 that authorities charged the man they said had killed her: an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador and onetime gang member who had previously been convicted of assaulting two women in the Northwest Washington park.
When a jury found Ingmar Guandique guilty of murder in 2010, it seemed as if the case had finally come to a close. But two years later, that conviction was overturned and a new trial ordered after questions surfaced about a key witness in the case. Then, just months before the second trial was to begin, prosecutors in 2016 abruptly dropped all charges against Guandique. So far, no one has been held to account for Levy’s killing.
Now, two of the lead attorneys who prosecuted Guandique are facing allegations that they mishandled the case by failing to appropriately reveal information that cast doubt on the credibility of their star witness.
Beginning on Tuesday, former assistant U.S. attorneys Amanda Haines and Fernando Campoamor-Sanchez are set to face a D.C. lawyer ethics panel during a rare, week-long public hearing.
Officials with the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel allege that Haines and Campoamor-Sanchez did not disclose that their witness Armando Morales, a five-time felon and former gang member, had previously provided information to law enforcement officials in a separate criminal case. Morales testified at Guandique’s trial that he had never before cooperated with authorities.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Fernando Campoamor-Sanchez departs the courthouse following a 2010 hearing for defendant Ingmar Guandique. (Nikki Kahn/The Washington Post)
Prosecutors are required to provide the defense all pertinent evidence before trial to allow defense attorneys time to investigate the findings. Prosecutors must disclose the information even if the evidence jeopardizes their case. Failure to do so could result in a case being retried or thrown out by a court and the prosecutor being disciplined.
Attorneys for Haines and Campoamor-Sanchez call the ethics allegations unfounded and say information regarding Morales’s dealings with prosecutors had been shared — a contention the defense attorneys and the Disciplinary Counsel dispute.
“Mr. Campoamor-Sanchez denies the charges against him. He respects the Board’s process and looks forward to demonstrating that he acted appropriately,” attorney Mark Lynch said in an email.
Justin Dillon, an attorney for Haines, said the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility investigated the allegations for two years and then “cleared” her of misconduct. A Justice spokesman declined to comment on the investigation.
Dillon, also a former federal prosecutor, said Haines retired this month after 30 years as a litigator, more than 20 years of which was spent as a prosecutor in Washington. The 59-year-old Haines, Dillon said, remains licensed to practice law in Washington and New York. Dillon questioned why the Disciplinary Counsel was “still going after her, especially now that she’s retired.”
Prosecutors are required to provide the defense all pertinent evidence before trial to allow defense attorneys time to investigate the findings. Prosecutors must disclose the information even if the evidence jeopardizes their case. Failure to do so could result in a case being retried or thrown out by a court and the prosecutor being disciplined.
Attorneys for Haines and Campoamor-Sanchez call the ethics allegations unfounded and say information regarding Morales’s dealings with prosecutors had been shared — a contention the defense attorneys and the Disciplinary Counsel dispute.
“Mr. Campoamor-Sanchez denies the charges against him. He respects the Board’s process and looks forward to demonstrating that he acted appropriately,” attorney Mark Lynch said in an email.
Justin Dillon, an attorney for Haines, said the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility investigated the allegations for two years and then “cleared” her of misconduct. A Justice spokesman declined to comment on the investigation.
Dillon, also a former federal prosecutor, said Haines retired this month after 30 years as a litigator, more than 20 years of which was spent as a prosecutor in Washington. The 59-year-old Haines, Dillon said, remains licensed to practice law in Washington and New York. Dillon questioned why the Disciplinary Counsel was “still going after her, especially now that she’s retired.”
No comments:
Post a Comment