Ed Martin is the wrong person to investigate the prosecutors during the Biden era

The newly appointed American lawyer puts an unfortunate development on the old question of Satirist Juvenal: “Quis Custodiet Ipsos Crotdes?” – “Who will guard the guards themselves?”

Edward R. Martin, the son, the interim American lawyer for Washington, DC, was previously defending several demonstrators on January 6. Within hours of his appointment, Martin opened an investigation into whether his office, under the leadership of the Biden era, participated in the misconduct in the case of the cases of January 6, as it included many violent crimes against police officers.

His point of view is that federal public prosecutors have been overwhelmed in cases, and seeks to verify whether the public prosecutors have incorrect political motives to do so.

A hypothesis to examine the work of the prosecutors on cases on January 6 is that the Supreme Court, in Resolution 6-3, has put one aspect of charges against a protester on January 6. The court found that the federal trial court and the Court of Appeal had interpreted the federal obstacle law to penetrate on a large scale. The court allowed the defendant to be convicted of six other charges, including the attack on a federal officer.

It is a horrific thing for prosecutors suspected of misconduct for accusations based on what was, in the past, a very wide reading of a criminal law. The administration policy was not to adopt conservative readings of criminal laws.

Over the years, the Supreme Court canceled federal criminal convictions on many occasions, as it concluded that the prosecutors have extended the law, including in the prosecutions of politicians on charges of fraud and bribery by mail. But no one – at least all the leadership in the Ministry of Justice – questioned the motives of the prosecutors to bring these cases.

In particular, in the cases of January 6, it seems clear that the prosecutors continued in good faith, given that their reading of the law has been shared by the judges of the lower court and three judges in the Supreme Court.

In the positions in which there is a good reason to believe that federal public prosecutors have offended the use of their extensive power, it is important to the place of investigation, and if misconduct is discovered, to hold public prosecutors accountable. The question in such cases is, who should do this task?

Usually, this task goes to any of the cables in the Ministry of Justice – the office of professional responsibility or the Inspector General. Lawyers of the job government in these offices have the investigation of possible misconduct by the Ministry of Justice employees.

Equally important, they can be trusted to do this work objectively, because they do not have direct political links. Moreover, these offices are subject to censorship – by Congress in the case of the Inspector General, and the Prosecutor in the case of the Office of Professional Liability.

Martin’s decision to start and supervise the investigation of his predecessor’s work, instead of referring the matter to the officials of the Ministry of Justice responsible for the investigation of the prosecution’s misconduct, disturbs many aspects.

One of the problems is the conflict of clear interests in the start of the investigation of the prosecutors who opposed it as a defense lawyer. But even if he does not participate in the criminal defense aspect on January 6, Martin’s role in his capacity as the political appointed of President Trump will raise concerns about his political bias.

On an equal footing is Martin’s proximity to the president. It is reasonable to conclude that Trump’s political appointments will share his personal and political interest in distorting the reputation of judicial trials on January 6. Away from the International Neutral Energy Agency, Martin appears to have a political ax for grinding. If he is concluded, or those under it, that there is a representative misconduct, many will be skeptical due to his clear bias.

More worry is the message he sends to all federal prosecutors. Public prosecutors will now worry, as it should, regarding revenge if they make unimaginable decisions in political sensitive cases. Because the law and justice themselves often require such unimaginable options, the Ministry of Justice will be significantly less effective.

Public prosecutors are generally trained to make decisions regarding who must be investigated, and whether they should start criminal charges and any charges to submit them, whether it is to submit a deal to acknowledge guilt, what are the provisions that must be searched after obtaining a conviction, and other important decisions According to the rules and practices of the legal profession and the Ministry of Justice. These standards are designed to reduce incorrect bias and considerations. Public prosecutors are taught to apply the law on facts and treat cases alike. They are trained to not consider inappropriate factors, such as partisan political considerations.

But it will be difficult for federal prosecutors to ignore political considerations after a new American lawyer, without reason, seeks to discover the prosecution’s misconduct in cases that are a new president of the new president, who closed cases by issuing hundreds of amnesty. The sudden message if the unknown work is that the future work of the public prosecutors will be subject to a Litmus political test.

If the future prosecutors, who act independently, investigate or trial the president’s allies, are sitting, or fail to follow the president’s enemies, these prosecutors can expect to review their decisions and confront negative employment procedures. If they want to maintain their jobs, they will use their power to weaken Trump’s political opponents while encouraging his allies to commit crimes without punishment.

Who should be achieved in the possible misconduct by the prosecutors during the Biden era? If we care about democratic principles and the rule of law, the answer should not be clear, “the last political appointment of Trump.”

Bruce Green is a professor at the Fordam Faculty of Law, where the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, and Rebecca Ruven is a professor at the College of Law in New York, where the Institute of Professional Ethics is directed.