Oral Argument Held In Bar Prosecution Of Chandra Levy Prosecutors

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals heard oral argument today (second case argued at link here) in the appeals of bar discipline matters brought against prosecutors in the high profile Chandra Levy murder case.

The allegations involved disclosures not made to the defense in connection with a key government witness.

The Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended a 60-day suspension for one attorney and dismissal of charges against the other.

Rule 3.8 of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct sets forth the “Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor.” Rule 3.8(e) provides, in pertinent part, that a prosecutor in a criminal case shall not “[i]ntentionally fail to disclose to the defense, upon request and at a time when use by the defense is reasonably feasible, any evidence or information that the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know tends to negate the guilt of the accused or to mitigate the offense . . . .” As the Board has stated:

[A] violation of Rule 3.8(e) undermines our entire system of criminal justice. Prosecutors are not merely advocates; they are called upon to make sure that criminal trials are fair to the accused and that the machinery of prosecution is credible. At its most severe, a violation of Rule 3.8(e) can mean that an innocent person languishes in prison . . . .

In re Dobbie, Board Docket No. 19-BD-018, at 37-38 (BPR Jan. 13, 2021).

Respondents Haines and Campoamor-Sanchez are charged with the failure to timely disclose exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, in violation of Rule 3.8(e); for this same alleged misconduct, both are also charged with engaging in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d). Respondent Haines is also charged with knowingly disclosing confidential government information, in violation of Rule 1.6(a). We find that Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent Haines violated Rules 1.6(a), 3.8(e), and 8.4(d), and we recommend that she be suspended for sixty days. For the reasons discussed herein, we dismiss all charges against Respondent Campoamor-Sanchez.

Respondents

Respondents Amanda Haines and Fernando Campoamor-Sanchez were Assistant United States Attorneys responsible for prosecuting Ingmar Guandique for the murder of a congressional intern, Chandra Levy, who had disappeared in 2001 and whose remains were found in Rock Creek Park a year later. FF 1-4.2 The trial of Ingmar Guandique took place in October and November 2010. Jt. Stip. 6-8.3 At that time, Respondent Haines, who began working as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in 1998, was a seasoned trial lawyer. Beginning in about 2007 she began working primarily on unsolved homicide cases involving female victims. FF 3. Respondent Campoamor-Sanchez joined the D.C U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2004 and was assigned to its homicide section in September 2007. FF 4.

At the center of this disciplinary case is a three-page letter, dated February 23, 2009, that federal inmate Miguel Zaldivar had sent to law enforcement (the “Zaldivar letter”). FF 6-7. This letter detailed information about the Levy case provided to Zaldivar by another federal inmate, Armando Morales. Morales provided this information to Zaldivar for the specific purpose of inclusion in the letter to law enforcement. At the time this letter was written, Morales and Zaldivar were incarcerated in the same facility, and Morales considered Zaldivar to be his “mentor.” FF 7-8, 59. Morales ultimately served as a key prosecution witness in the trial of Ingmar Guandique for the murder of Chandra Levy. See, e.g., FF 49, 61, 65

The first page of the Zaldivar letter provided background information about Armando Morales, including, among other things, that Morales: (i) had seen Levy’s case on CNN; (ii) knew who killed Chandra Levy; (iii) was a founder of the Fresno Bulldogs, a notorious gang closely associated with the “Mexican Mafia”; (iv) was a drop-out from the gang; (v) had “debriefed to law enforcement about his gang involvement”; and (vi) was willing to help law enforcement with the Levy case. FF 7; see also DCX 6 at 88

The second and third pages of the Zaldivar letter contained text, written in the form of a narrative by Morales, in which Zaldivar “hope[d] . . . to capture the essence” of what Morales knew about the murder as Morales had told it to Zaldivar. DCX 5 at 49. The narrative recited that, while Ingmar Guandique and Morales shared a cell three years earlier in 2006, Guandique told Morales he had attacked Chandra Levy and was afraid he would be charged with her murder. Id. at 49-50

Key disputed fact

There is no dispute that Respondents did not disclose the Zaldivar letter to defense counsel prior to the start of trial. Pages two and three of the letter were produced mid-trial, as Jencks material, roughly two nights before Morales testified. FF 46. Although the issue was hotly contested by the parties, the Hearing Committee found that the first page of the Zaldivar letter – which, again, contained the statement that Morales had previously “debriefed to law enforcement” – was never produced to the defense before the end of the trial. See FF 37, 56.

(Mike Frisch)