According to media reports, the Justice Department will ask for dismissal of the indictment against former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (R) this morning, which will in effect drop all charges and void the jury conviction of the former lawmaker for improperly accepting gifts and home renovations from friend and Alaska businessman Bill Allen, the former head of Alaska-based energy company Veco Corporation. The Justice Department will not seek to retry Stevens, thereby setting aside one of the biggest public corruption convictions in the Senate’s history.

The conviction had been called into serious question before it was even handed down, with charges of prosecutorial misconduct beginning before the trial was over. Since then, the story has only become more bizarre, with the defense charging (and evidence apparently indicating) that there had been an improper sexual relationship between the lead FBI agent and Allen, among other additional misconduct allegations.

Attorney General Eric Holder, who himself began in the Public Integrity Office of the Justice Department, reportedly made his decision because of Stevens’ advanced age and to make an example of the prosecutors so the rest of the Department knows that such conduct will not be tolerated. What is unclear is where taxpayers and justice itself are left once this action is taken. Stevens was convicted of accepting items worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, including extensive renovations to his Girdwood, Alaska chalet, having never disclosed them as required in his Senate public disclosure documents. And though the prosecution never attempted to prove any “pay for play” in this case, the trial made it clear that Stevens on several occasions took special interest in issues that were important to (and often lucrative for) Veco Corporation. 

In just two weeks time, there was to be a hearing in court, open to the public, to air the evidence of prosecutorial misconduct that has come to light since the Stevens trial ended. With today’s announcement, that hearing will not occur, and again taxpayers will be left without the advantage of an open process by which to learn about the improper actions of the public’s attorneys. We do agree with Attorney General Holder, however, that the Public Integrity division of the Justice Department must be above reproach, and that any misconduct must be dealt with harshly.  We can only hope that the public integrity office continues to aggressively pursue cases of corruption and not let this decision raise the bar too high for future prosecutions.