When a prosecution witness and a juror are doing the horizontal mambo, it seems to me that you there exists a significant reason for a do-over. And if it is an investigator and a witness? Well, the conflict is different, but it certainly provides enough of a taint to warrant overturning a conviction.

Attorneys for former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) have accused an FBI agent involved in the Stevens corruption investigation of having an inappropriate relationship with a key witness in the case.

Based on a complaint by an FBI whistleblower, Agent Chad Joy, the Stevens defense team claims that Mary Beth Kepner, the lead FBI agent on the case, had a personal relationship with Bill Allen, the CEO of an Alaska oil services firm and a witness against Stevens.

Stevens’ lawyers state that Joy’s memo “strongly suggests that the inappropriate relationship was sexual.” Joy stated that Kepner “wore a skirt for Allen” on a day that he was to testify in the case.

Joy also charges that Kepner may have provided secret grand jury information to Allen about other ongoing federal investigations.

I agree with Ed Morrissey on this one:

The affair may be the lesser of the concerns prosecutors have over this motion. Joy informed the prosecution of the relationship on or before December 2nd, but did not reveal it to the court on that day. That could represent prosecutorial misconduct if the judge rules that the information was relevant and germane to the defense — and it’s hard to argue that a sexual relationship between a key witness and an FBI agent wouldn’t go to credibility.

The entire Stevens case was marked with assorted irregularities by the prosecution. Justice is a good thing – but I’m starting to wonder if what was done in this case was not justice.

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.