US ATTORNEY RELENTS IN DISPUTE WITH JUDGE

US Attorney Relents In Dispute With Judge In Court, Sullivan Gets Stern
Reprimand

A cease-fire was called yesterday in the ongoing feud between US Attorney
Michael Sullivan and federal Judge Mark L. Wolf when Sullivan backed down
and submitted to a public tongue-lashing from the judge.

But Sullivan and Wolf will continue to wrangle over whether government
prosecutors are obeying their legal requirement to give evidence to defense
attorneys as the Massachusetts federal district drafts new rules on their
obligations.

"It's not just my problem. It's your problem, and you're going to take care
of it," Wolf said yesterday, after describing, once again, the cases in
which he'd been forced to declare mistrials or dismiss charges against
criminal defendants because prosecutors handed over exculpatory evidence at
the last minute.

Sullivan clearly chafed at being ordered by Wolf to explain the actions of
his prosecutors, again questioning the judge's power to demand his presence
in the courtroom. In the last decade, Wolf is the only federal judge in
Boston to order the US attorney to appear before him; he has done so three
times.

"Honestly and candidly, if I had been in the court when the order was
received, regardless of my opinion of the court's authority to issue the
order, I would have honored the order," Sullivan said yesterday. "I have
never once disregarded an order of the court."

"You express doubts about my authority to order the US attorney to appear,"
Wolf retorted. "I myself have no such doubt."

Last Wednesday, Sullivan was at the dentist in Holbrook at 9 a.m. when he
learned that Wolf had ordered his presence an hour later in US District
Court in Boston. "It was impossible for me to be here at 10 o'clock,"
Sullivan said. "I meant no disrespect." Wolf said he had considered holding
Sullivan in criminal contempt when he failed to appear.

In several written affidavits and in past interviews with the Globe,
Sullivan has insisted that prosecutors very rarely neglect to turn over
evidence to defense attorneys, and denied that there is a pattern of
misconduct in his office. But during his brief, five-minute court
appearance yesterday, he confined his comments to his failure to appear
last week.

Sullivan showed up yesterday at 10 a.m. sharp for a stern 45-minute lecture
on what Wolf called a disturbing and persistent pattern of prosecutors
failing to turn over evidence. Wolf, a former federal prosecutor himself,
has vociferously criticized the US attorney's office for breaking the rules
about giving evidence to defense lawyers in a timely manner, as they are
required to do.

Within the last two years -- a period which includes the final year in
office of Sullivan's predecessor, Donald K. Stern -- there have been at
least 19 allegations of prosecutors not turning over evidence in a timely
fashion.

While the US attorney's office handles 400 criminal cases a year, only a
small percentage -- 19 last year -- go to trial. The rest are resolved by
the defendant pleading guilty, although prosecutors are obligated to
disclose evidence that could help the defense in all cases.

Most of the complaints of withheld exculpatory evidence, however, came in
cases that went to trial. Of the 19 allegations of withheld evidence, 12
involved cases which were tried. And in at least half of them, judges found
that evidence had been improperly withheld or ordered prosecutors to
produce further evidence for the defense.

Just this month, Wolf declared a mistrial in a criminal case after
prosecutors delivered exculpatory evidence at the last minute. US District
Judge Joseph L. Tauro postponed another criminal trial when prosecutors
presented evidence late.

And in April, Wolf dismissed a case against an accused marijuana dealer
after prosecutors repeatedly failed to disclose evidence. At that time,
Wolf demanded that Sullivan detail measures he was taking to properly train
prosecutors and federal agents in the rules on disclosure of exculpatory
evidence to defense attorneys.

The defense attorney in that case, John McBride, said he was shocked that
irregularities had persisted even after the well-publicized dispute in April.

"This is a systemic pattern of failing to disclose material exculpatory
evidence," he said.