The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office said in court documents Tuesday that District Attorney Larry Krasner should be barred from continuing to oversee a controversial post-conviction case in federal court — and that his office should be kicked off the case as well.
In a brief filed with U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond, state prosecutors said Krasner’s office should not be allowed to continue to weigh in on whether a man’s murder conviction should be overturned. In recent months, prosecutors wrote, inner-office drama about the case has consumed Krasner’s office, and “the DA placed his personal interest in protecting the office above the Commonwealth’s interest.”
But Krasner’s office countered in its own filings Tuesday that that was not true.
Without denying that the case had caused contentious internal disagreements between Krasner and his staff, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Gaeta wrote that Krasner had handled the matter in legally appropriate ways, and that his office should be allowed to continue overseeing it.
And even though some of Krasner’s own staffers have accused him of questionable conduct in the case — including by saying he told them to “protect the office” and that they could face “consequences” if they didn’t — Gaeta wrote Tuesday that Krasner had taken pains to ensure the case was handled “with competence and integrity.”
“DA Krasner has taken no action inconsistent with his obligation to fairly represent the Commonwealth on behalf of the people of Philadelphia, despite the intemperate comments witnesses claimed he made,” the document said.
The dueling filings came a week after the end of testimony in a multiday hearing in front of Diamond, during which the judge sought to learn more about how various attorneys connected to the case have behaved while it has been moving through federal court.
The underlying case began as a routine post-conviction matter, as Dennis Johnson — found guilty of second-degree murder in 2009 — sought to have his conviction overturned.
But in recent months, the case has led to a series of explosive revelations about the inner workings of the district attorney’s office. Many of the accusations have come from four prosecutors who said they advised Krasner to refer the case to the attorney general’s office, which, in their telling, led Krasner to respond angrily, or by suggesting tactics they thought were legally inappropriate.
Those tactics, they said, included keeping the case in-house, potentially seeking to assign blame to a line prosecutor while protecting her supervisor, and taking steps to “protect the office” in court.
Diamond, at one point during the proceedings, suggested he viewed the allegations as potentially criminal, saying if they were true, they could amount to perjury, conspiracy, or obstruction of justice. He did not specify who he believed might be at fault.
The attorney general’s office wrote Tuesday that the testimony from Krasner’s staff in the case demonstrated that he had acted in ways that were self-motivated or otherwise disconnected from the merits of the underlying petition — a situation that, in court cases, is considered a conflict of interest.
And that conflict, wrote the state prosecutors — Susan E. Affronti and John J. Boscia — would inevitably extend to anyone working for Krasner, particularly after his threat of “consequences” for those who did not follow his orders.
“At that point, any attorneys working under DA Krasner would themselves be subject to the conflict, knowing that they were required, on the one hand, to do what the boss wanted, and, on the other hand, to do what professional ethics required,” they wrote.
Krasner, in his office’s filing, said that was not so.
Although the filing acknowledged that Krasner “plainly did not appreciate [his staffers’] repeated, unsolicited, and wavering advice” to refer the case to state prosecutors, he said their recommendation was “inexpert and legally unsupported.” And he said he had consulted with legal experts who agreed with him, including one whose written opinion his office attached to Tuesday’s brief.
He also reiterated that he had hired an outside attorney to handle the case on his office’s behalf: Jean Peters-Baker, a longtime prosecutor from Missouri who previously led the prosecutor’s office in the county that includes Kansas City.
In addition, Krasner’s filing said, “as the elected chief prosecutor, the decision on whether or not to refer the case was entrusted to him. It was not a decision for his employees to make, or attempt to force him into making, via unauthorized and legally inappropriate public pleadings.”
His office’s brief did not deny another notable allegation from his staff: that when they suggested he refer the matter to the attorney general’s office, he described that office’s lawyers as “Nazis.”
While the filing did not address the use of that particular term, it did say Krasner had “general mistrust” of many people working in that office “based upon decades of observing their work” in the legal system — including, in his view, people who sought to secure or defend wrongful convictions. Some lawyers who now work in that office were fired by Krasner just days after he took office in 2018.
“DA Krasner’s view (i.e. that illegally and willfully acting to convict and incarcerate an innocent person for decades is akin to kidnapping, torture, or other war crimes) is well known,” the filing says. “But any animus he may have towards individual employees of that office based upon their own actions and inactions has nothing to do with whether he correctly declined to refer a case.”
The attorney general’s office, in its filing, said Krasner’s refusal to send the case to an office he disliked was another demonstration of how his judgment in the matter had been flawed.
“His actions, and his words, thus demonstrate that he acted on the basis of personal animus, not the interests of the Commonwealth,” the filing said.
Johnson’s attorneys, meanwhile, also filed a brief Tuesday in which they took no position on who should serve as the prosecutor in his ongoing case. Their only request was that Diamond appoint only one agency to handle it moving forward, rather than forcing him to litigate his petition against prosecutors from both the city and the state.
The decision on whether to allow Krasner’s office to continue handling the case will now fall to Diamond. The judge has not indicated how quickly he might rule.
