Chandra Levy Prosecutor Sanctioned With Probation For Withholding Exculpatory Evidence

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals sanctioned one of two attorneys charged with misconduct in the prosecution of the Chandra Levy murder case.

The attorney who served as lead counsel received a fully-stayed 60-day suspension and probation for one year.

The other charged attorney was absolved of the ethics charges.

In this appeal we are asked to review the Board on Professional Responsibility’s (the Board) determination that respondent Amanda Haines failed to disclose exculpatory information in contravention of her ethical duties as a prosecutor, as well as the Board’s determination that respondent Fernando Campoamor-Sánchez did not violate his ethical duties for related conduct. Resolution of these questions requires us to assess the Board’s finding that the existence of a key witness’s prior “debrief” with law enforcement constituted exculpatory information and, if so, whether Ms. Haines was ethically obligated to disclose the fact of the debrief to a criminal defendant. We are also tasked with reviewing the Board’s finding that withholding exculpatory information constitutes unethical interference with the administration of justice. Finally, we assess what sanction is merited for withholding exculpatory information and seriously interfering with the administration of justice.

The disappearance and murder of Chandra Levy in 2001 attracted national attention. The case went cold, but around 2008 investigators began to focus their attention on Ingmar Guandique. While watching television in prison, Armando Morales saw a report naming Mr. Guandique as the prime suspect in the Levy murder. Mr. Morales and Mr. Guandique had previously been incarcerated together, during which time—according to Mr. Morales—Mr. Guandique privately confessed to the Levy murder. After seeing the television report, Mr. Morales submitted a letter to law enforcement detailing Mr. Guandique’s confession. In the introduction of the letter, Mr. Morales revealed that he had previously “debriefed to law enforcement about his gang involvement.”

Mr. Guandique was subsequently indicted for the Levy murder and went to trial in 2010. The lead prosecutor was Amanda Haines, while Fernando Campoamor-Sánchez was another prosecutor on the government’s trial team. At trial, Mr. Morales was the sole witness to testify that Mr. Guandique confessed to the murder of Ms. Levy. During his testimony, Mr. Morales was portrayed as a formerly hardened criminal whose reformed values compelled him to come forward to testify. The fact that Mr. Morales previously debriefed with law enforcement was not disclosed prior to or during trial. At the end of trial, Mr. Guandique was convicted and sentenced to sixty years in prison.

Approximately two years later, the Fresno, California police department contacted the Levy prosecution team to reveal that Mr. Morales had an extensive history of cooperation with law enforcement. This information was passed along to Mr. Guandique’s counsel, who moved for a new trial on the grounds that Mr. Morales’s debrief was impeachment evidence that should have been disclosed prior to trial. Following multiple post-conviction hearings concerning the motion for a new trial, the government withdrew its opposition to the motion and moved to dismiss the indictment against Mr. Guandique with prejudice.

Thereafter, Disciplinary Counsel charged Ms. Haines and Mr. Campoamor-Sánchez with failing to disclose information that tended to discredit a key government witness in violation of D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 3.8(e) and 8.4(d). Ms. Haines was also charged with violating Rule 1.6(a) by impermissibly disclosing client confidences (namely, internal U.S. Attorney’s Office email communications concerning the prosecution of Mr. Guandique) in a personal email to her boyfriend. The Ad Hoc Committee of the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Hearing Committee) recommended that the charges against Mr. Campoamor-Sánchez be dropped, but found that Ms. Haines violated  Rules 3.8(e), 8.4(d), and 1.6(a), and recommended that she be suspended from the practice of law for ninety days. The Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) substantially adopted the Hearing Committee’s findings, recommending that Ms. Haines be suspended from the practice of law for sixty days and the charges against Mr. Campoamor-Sánchez be dropped.

On appeal, Ms. Haines argues that she did not violate Rule 3.8(e), contending that the fact of Mr. Morales’s debrief was not exculpatory. Disciplinary Counsel counters that the fact of the debrief was impeachment information subject to disclosure. Ms. Haines also argues that she did not know, nor should she reasonably have known, of the debrief’s exculpatory value. Disciplinary Counsel contends that Ms. Haines reasonably should have known of the information’s exculpatory nature and that the Board erred in finding that she lacked actual knowledge of this fact. Ms. Haines further asserts that her conduct was insufficiently egregious to have violated Rule 8.4(d), while Disciplinary Counsel argues that Ms. Haines’s conduct was sufficient to violate that rule. Finally, Ms. Haines argues that she should not be sanctioned for violating Rules 3.8(e) and 8.4(d), and that, at most, she should receive an informal admonition for violating Rule 1.6. Disciplinary Counsel counters that precedent compels a suspension of no less than six months for Ms. Haines’s violation of Rules 3.8(e), 8.4(d), and 1.6.

Also on appeal is the Board’s recommendation to dismiss the charges against Mr. Campoamor-Sánchez. Disciplinary Counsel argues that because Mr. Campoamor-Sánchez had knowledge of the exculpatory information and responsibility for presenting Mr. Morales at trial, his failure to disclose constitutes a violation of Rules 3.8(e) and 8.4(d).3 Mr. Campoamor-Sánchez contends that he was not responsible for disclosing Giglio material and thus not responsible for disclosing the fact of the debrief. He further asserts that if he did violate Rules 3.8(e) and 8.4(d), In re Kline, 113 A.3d 202 (D.C. 2015), precludes imposition of a sanction.

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. We also conclude that the Board’s recommended disposition as to Ms. Haines fails to account for the totality of the circumstances and merits a downward variance, while its recommended disposition as to Mr. Campoamor-Sánchez is warranted. Accordingly, Ms. Haines is suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for sixty days, stayed as to all in favor of one year of probation. Additionally, we hold that Mr. Campoamor-Sánchez did not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. 

The letter

On March 24, 2009, the investigation team received a three-page letter, dated February 23, 2009, written by federal inmate Miguel Zaldivar on behalf of another federal inmate, Armando Morales (the Zaldivar letter). Mr. Zaldivar wrote that Mr. Morales knew who killed Mr. Levy and was willing to assist the government in bringing the killer to justice. The letter presented a narrative delivered by Mr. Morales and was intended to “capture the essence” of his knowledge of the Levy case.

According to Mr. Morales, he and Mr. Guandique were cellmates for four months in 2006, during which time Mr. Guandique revealed to Mr. Morales that he had attacked Ms. Levy and “was worried about being charged with [her] murder.” Mr. Morales did not report Mr. Guandique’s admission at this time, but, approximately three years later, in 2009, divulged the confession to Mr. Zaldivar after seeing a report about Ms. Levy’s murder on CNN. The first page of the letter also revealed that Mr. Morales was a founder of the Fresno Bulldogs gang, although he had dropped out of the gang and—critically to this proceeding—“debriefed to law enforcement about his gang involvement.”4 The letter did not indicate whether  Mr. Morales’s debriefing was limited to his own conduct, whether he refused to implicate others, or whether he asked for or received any benefit for cooperating.

Guandigue was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to a 60-year prison term; the letter came to light later

Thereafter, Mr. Guandique moved for a new trial—“largely based on [the newfound] information” contained in the Zaldivar letter—arguing that the information should have been disclosed prior to his trial. Following multiple postconviction hearings, the government withdrew its opposition to the motion. Consequently, the trial court did not rule on whether the government’s alleged failure to disclose the entire Zaldivar letter violated Brady. The government subsequently moved to dismiss with prejudice the indictment against Mr. Guandique.

The court here concluded that the withheld evidence was exculpatory

Put plainly, Mr. Morales’s testimony was the fulcrum of the trial, and his credibility was a highly contested issue on which the value of that testimony turned. Potentially the largest problem that Mr. Morales posed as a witness was his three-year delay in coming forward to report Mr. Guandique’s confession. Mr. Morales’s explanation that he had never come forward in this manner due to his “thug mentality” and did not know how to do so provided the government with a useful riposte to their witness’s weakness. The government built up Mr. Morales’s credibility around this narrative of his unselfish redemption. The revelation of the debrief would have enabled the defense to undermine Mr. Morales’s “conversion” narrative and cast doubt on the motivation for his delay in coming forward, therefore undermining the credibility of his report of Mr. Guandique’s confession.

And was not produced

we agree with the Board’s finding that Ms. Haines consciously decided not to produce the first page of the Zaldivar letter in the Giglio letter. Ms. Haines therefore acted with the requisite intent to violate Rule 3.8(e).

Haines violation of duty to disclose exculpatory evidence regarding the credibility of Morales

In sum, the views of the three sets of prosecutors proffered by Ms. Haines do not mitigate our conclusion that a reasonable prosecutor would have known the fact of the debrief was exculpatory…

Here, Ms. Haines intentionally failed to disclose the fact of Mr. Morales’s debrief, which is improper conduct in violation of both Rule 3.8(e) and Giglio. This misconduct bore heavily upon the judicial process in this case: Mr. Guandique’s defense was unable to draw upon material information during cross-examination of the government’s key witness. Finally, the misconduct fundamentally tainted the judicial process. Absent disclosure, Mr. Guandique was sentenced to sixty years in prison. After numerous post-conviction hearings that are significantly attributable to Ms. Haines’s misconduct, a new trial was granted. This chain of events led to the dismissal of the charges against Mr. Guandique before a second trial could be held.

Ms. Haines’s conduct is similar to that in other cases where we held attorneys violated Rule 8.4(d).

Sanction

Here, the Board recommends a sixty-day suspension, which is a reduction of the Committee’s recommended ninety-day suspension. The Board justified the reduction in part because Ms. Haines did not engage in dishonesty and had a clean disciplinary record. We agree with the Board’s assessment that these considerations merit a downward variance from the Committee’s recommended sanction.

However, the Board did not reduce Ms. Haines’s sanction by a sufficient degree. In considering Ms. Haines’s lack of dishonesty and clean disciplinary record, the Board only reduced the Committee’s recommended sanction by thirty days. Furthermore, the Board did not consider the fact that Ms. Haines is not charged with failing to disclose other exculpatory information. The Board should have followed the path set by the court in Dobbie and stayed the suspension in favor of one year of probation. Of course, Ms. Haines is not absolved of misconduct by the actions of supervisors as was the case in Dobbie. However, her misconduct was the result of a seemingly honest mistake. We do not think it appropriate to suspend a career prosecutor from the practice of law for sixty days for a once-in-a-career lapse in judgment. The imposition of the sixty-day suspension acknowledges the impact Ms. Haines’s conduct had on the Levy case, while staying the suspension recognizes Ms. Haines’s reduced culpability. We determine that this outcome best serves the purposes of imposing attorney discipline: “to serve the interests of the public and of the profession.” In re Askew, 225 A.3d 388, 397 (D.C. 2020).

The system of attorney discipline is ultimately the responsibility and duty of this court. Haar, 270 A.3d at 294. While the Board carefully considered the conduct of Ms. Haines and assiduously compared it to conduct in similar cases, we cannot endorse a sixty-day suspension. We deviate from the Board’s recommendation because the sanction it endorses is too harsh for a good faith, one-time, honest mistake by an otherwise competent prosecutor. We are confident that Ms. Haines will take seriously the weight of her conduct.

Accordingly, Ms. Haines is to be suspended from the practice of law for sixty days, stayed as to all in favor of one year of probation.

The per curiam opinion came from a panel composed of BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Chief Judge, HOWARD, Associate Judge, and GLICKMAN, Senior Judge. (Mike Frisch)