SAC Daniel P. Love’s Ethics Violations Not Properly Disclosed

Steven Stewart motioned for the dismissal of the entire case against Tier 3 Defendants. The Government has the responsibility to disseminate certain information to defendants if it will help their case. Love was the subject of an ethics inquirydetailing two events occurring in 2015. The Department of Interior’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that Love’s behavior in both incidents was in serious violation of Department policies. Due to these violations and Love’s role in Bundy Ranch, the incidents described by the OIG’s report fall under Giglio / Henthorne requirements. Consequently, Tier 3 defendants request case dismissal.

The Government’s  Responsibility…

In  Giglio v. USA (1972), the Supreme Court held that prosecutors have the responsibility to disclose any information that could affect the credibility of a witness. This could include (but is not limited to) negative items in witnesses’ criminal history or deals for immunity. Love’s ethics inquiry falls into this category because he tampered with OIG witnesses through harassment, threats, and assertions that witnesses should lie in their interviews.

In United States vs Henthorn (1991), an extension to Giglio, the 9th Circuit ruled that Prosecutors must examine personnel files of witnesses (including those of law enforcement) for Giglio material when the demand occurs.

When it comes to exculpatory (beneficial to the defense) evidence, both negligence and intentional failure on the part of the Prosecution are fatal to Due Process.

The Government’s Failure…

Payne requested Henthorn material early in the trial proceedings. In ECF No. 1017, filed 22 November 2016, Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen ruled that Giglio / Henthorn material would be due by 06 January 2017. Stewart maintains that Love testified before the Grand Jury in October 2015. The allegations against Love had already surfaced in September 2015. By the time Leen ruled in late 2016 on a deadline for Giglio / Henthorn, the Government should have been aware of the allegations against Love. Regardless, Love should have disclosed the investigation against him to prosecutors.

The failure of the Government to produce this evidence is fatal to Due Process. The Court has several options. It could rule to dismiss the case (unlikely). Second, the Court could rule that the effected witness cannot testify. Last, the court could order a continuance (which Stewart argued against).

Defendants Request Case Dismissal

Stewart argues that the Government’s failure is fatal to due process. Rather than disclose the OIG investigation, defendants found the report online. The Salt Lake Tribune broke the story on 01 February 2017. While Love is not specifically named, it is obvious that he is the subject of the complaints and subsequent investigation.

If the Court will not dismiss the case, Stewart asks that it precludes testimony from Love during trial.

source