Archive
Please remember to use your browser's REFRESH button to
ensure you are veiwing the most recent version of the web page.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
v. ALPHONSO
MICHAEL ESPY, Defendant Criminal No. 97-0335 (RMU GOVERNMENTS MOTION AND
INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM TO EXPEDITE APPEAL I.
INTRODUCTION
The
United States, represented by the Independent Counsel, hereby moves this court to expedite
this appeal. The reason for this motion is
the public interest in a prompt resolution of the underlying Independent Counsel
investigation; this resolution will be delayed so long as the present appeal, which
concerns the dismissal of four counts of a 39 count indictment, remains unresolved.
The
present appeal arises out of an independent counsel investigation initiated pursuant to
the Ethics in Government Act, 28 U.S.C. § 591 et seq., concerning former
Secretary of Agriculture Alphonso Michael Espy. The
Independent Counsel was appointed on September 9, 1994, and brought a 39 count indictment
against defendant Espy in the District of Columbia on August 27, 1997. Certain of these counts (numbers 26 to 28) were
brought under the Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. § 622); others (numbers 34 and 36
to 39) concerned false statements to federal officials prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
On
December 23, 1997, the district court granted defense motions to dismiss the Meat
Inspection counts of the indictment (counts 26 to 28) and one of the false statement
counts (count 39), and the Independent Counsel promptly noticed the present appeal. The District Courts order is attached as
Exhibit A. The Independent Counsel is urging
the District Court to try the remaining 35 counts as soon as possible. For the reasons discussed below, the Independent
Counsel respectfully asks that this appeal be expedited. II.
REASONS FOR
GRANTING THE MOTION
The
District Courts dismissal of four counts of a 39 count indictment implicates the
important public interest in prompt resolution of criminal matters. However, that interest is heightened here because
this prosecution is one of a number brought by an independent counsel appointed pursuant
to the Ethics in Government Act, 28 U.S.C. § 591 et seq.
Unlike
the Department of Justice or the United States Attorney, the office of an independent
counsel is not a continuing one. An
independent counsel is appointed to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute a single
set of related matters. A principal concern
of the legislation creating the office is that the independent counsel perform his duties
in a prompt, responsible, and cost-effective manner, and that he complete
. . . any prosecution without undue delay. 28 U.S.C. § 593(b)(3). Any delay in bringing an independent counsels
prosecutions to trial impedes the achievement of this goal.
In
this regard, the statute directly reflects the concerns of Congress. The legislative history of the present statute
includes the congressional criticism that Independent Counsel investigations take
too long. Senate Report No. 103-101,
2994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 761. Consequently, the
Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that
appoints the independent counsel is instructed to review the progress of his work every
two years for the first four years, and every year thereafter, to determine whether to
terminate his office. 28 U.S.C.
§ 596(b)(2).
The
need for prompt resolution is not just theoretical, however; it is very practical. Since the office of an independent counsel is a
temporary one, its personnel are by definition temporary, also. Some of the employees come from within the federal
service, and some come from without, but virtually all of the attorneys and investigative
agents working on these cases have somewhere else to which they need to return. Consequently, if a case is not tried
expeditiously, there is likely to be turnover in personnel, rendering the prosecution
highly inefficient.
The
statutory requirement that an independent counsel investigation be promptly resolved goes hand-in-hand with the
requirement that it be cost-effective. That
concern is heightened in the present case. The
prosecution of Secretary Espy is, of course, the focal point of this independent counsel
investigation. The Independent Counsel has
brought eight indictments and two informations, and of those all have either been tried or
resolved through plea bargaining (although one is scheduled for retrial commencing
February 2, 1998 and severed counts of another are to be scheduled for trial in early
1998). The remaining counts of the present
indictment are scheduled to go to trial on March 30, 1998.
The
present appeal is well suited to expedited treatment.
It concerns two motions raising discrete and relatively simple legal
defenses to two statutes under which the indictment was brought. The record consists only of the motion papers, the
transcript of a single hearing (which has already been prepared), and the attached
district court order. The underlying motions
to be reviewed entailed a total of 67 pages of briefing.
The issues raised by this appeal are important but not unduly complex.
Moreover,
failure to expedite this appeal will result in substantial prejudice to the Government. During an in chambers conference on December 15,
1997, Judge Urbina informed counsel for both sides that if trial did not commence by the
end of March or beginning of April, 1998, congestion in the court's calendar and the
expected length of trial would postpone trial in this matter until 1999. See Declaration of Joseph P. Guichet, Associate
Independent Counsel (attached as Exhibit B). For
the reasons discussed above, such a delay would constitute a significant hardship to the
Office of Independent Counsel. III.
SUGGESTED TIMETABLE
The
Government respectfully suggests the following timetable for the briefing and hearing of
this appeal. Appellants Brief Filed
5
days after record is filed or this motion is granted, whichever comes later. Appellees Brief Filed
15
days after Appellants Brief filed. Appellants Reply Filed
5
days after Appellees Brief filed. Oral Argument
As
soon as practicable after Appellants Reply is filed. IV.
CONCLUSION
There
is a strong public interest in resolving the present appeal quickly, so that the entirety
of this phase of the Independent Counsels investigation can be brought to closure. The Independent Counsel respectfully request this
court to expedite the present appeal so that all charges brought against defendant can be
resolved as quickly as possible. Date: January 12, 1998
Respectfully
submitted,
OFFICE
OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
In
Re Alphonso Michael (Mike) Espy
__________________________________
Donald
C. Smaltz, Independent Counsel
California
Bar No. 37312
Charles
M. Kagay, Chief Appellate Counsel
California
Bar No. 73377
103
Oronoco Street, Suite 200
Alexandria,
Virginia 22314
Phone: (703) 706-0010
Fax: (703) 706-0076
|