Punishment sought for prosecutor over mob case misconduct

, The National Law Journal

   | 2 Comments

A state disciplinary office argued before a federal appeals court to reinstate disciplinary charges against a Boston federal prosecutor who withheld exculpatory evidence, prompting a judge to release purported mobsters from prison.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Samuel Malat

    There is too much irony here. A prosecutor asking for a standard higher than Clear and Convincing? More importantly, this is just another example of which attorneys are the subjects of investigation and sanction and which are not. Study after study shows that most investigations are sought against small firm attorneys that made small infractions caused, by and large, of an increased workload and financial constraints. When charges are brought against prosecuting attorneys, they are largely dismissed at the initial review level. Even here, where something is being done to make Mr. Auerhahn's life a little uncomfortable, it has taken 20 years to get to the point. In that time, he has been able to enjoy a lucrative career while how many other lives were ruined by his over-zealous, ivory tower, arrogance?



    Enough people have been cleared by DNA evidence to let the world know that criminal prosecutions and trials are not perfect. Nearly 300 people have been exonerated by the works of the Innocence Project because they were lucky enough to have DNA evidence that was used against them that modern science could untangle. Those 300 people would still be thought of as guilty, and several executed, had the science of law enforcement not advanced, or had they had the mis-fortune of being prosecuted 20 years sooner than they were.



    Prosecutors need to be held accountable for what they do, and the standard of accountability could never be strict enough. There are so many good prosecutors, who believe in what they do, that do it ethically, that work hard to ensure that only the guilty are prosecuted, that devote their lives to ensure fairness in a system, that bring honor to a system fraught with perils, to allow folks like Mr. Auerhahn to bring dishonor to the majority because of his ego.



    If he really hid exculpatory evidence, let Mr. Auerhahn sit in a jail cell for the period of time that the people that had the misfortune of being prosecuted by him did, give up the money that he earned to those people that could not defend themselves, live with the public ridicule of being found guilty, and then see how arrogant he will be.

  • ELois Poole-Clayton

    In ELois P. Clayton V. Blake Horwitz/Erica Faaborg, the Illinois ARDC, wrongfully ruled NOT to prosecute Horwitz, for his(intentional) MISCONDUCTS, because he LIED, before the 'Trial' judge, when he used information against his ABUSED patient/raped patient client/when he stated to the judge(Gillespie) he, "did all he could do"(did NOt even visit his client, for his clients family was told by Horwitz, that, "it won't be necessary to visit him", leaving the family to believe that he could handle receiving justice for his then client, having his medical records to show that his then client had been treated for rape and ALSO stating to his then clients family, that, "he could receive GUARDIANSHIP for this family, "with NO problem", then turned around and used information that he was OBLIGATED NOT to use, UNLESS is was being used to 'PROTECT his client"....Illinois statue PROHIBITS an attorney from using ANY information for anything other than to protect his client;his client being ABUSED in a mental hospital, then doing NOTHING to combat the abuses orchestrated against his then client.....I can be contacted at (773)622-2906, to show MORE(BRIEF), proofs, on these mentioned matters!...NOTE: a 'Human Rights' attorney, is STILL needed for this patient.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202570783083

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.