The Chandra Levy murder case, one of the most publicized in recent history, was dismissed by prosecutors last week. It is a prime example of how the criminal justice system should not operate. It has exposed the danger of prosecutorial misconduct and cries out for reforms to protect those charged with a crime.
In 2001, Congressional intern Chandra Levy disappeared. Local police officers tracked her last known whereabouts to somewhere in Rock Creek Park, a densely wooded area in Washington, DC. Her remains were not discovered for over a year. Gary Condit, then serving in the House of Representatives, and with whom Levy had had an affair, was initially suspected but never charged with the murder.
In 2009, Ingmar Guandique, an El Salvadoran national, was charged with Levy’s murder. No physical evidence – no DNA, no fingerprints, no hair or fiber evidence, connected him to the crime. There were no eyewitnesses. The prosecution’s case against Guandique centered on the testimony of Armando Morales, a jailhouse informant who claimed that Guandique had confessed the murder to him.
Morales would testify that he had sought no benefit in exchange for his testimony. Prosecutors used Morales’ testimony to provide the basis to admit as “uncharged misconduct” evidence proof that Guandique had been convicted of two prior assaults against women in Rock Creek Park.
Lawyers from the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (“PDS”) vigorously defended Guandique. The defense team repeatedly asked for the names of jailhouse informants who would testify at trial so that crucial investigation into their backgrounds could be conducted in advance of their testimony. The trial judge required the prosecutors to turn over the names of the informants only two (2) weeks before trial; this was not nearly enough time to conduct the investigation required to represent Guandique effectively.
The defense team also aggressively pursued the disclosure of exculpatory information pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland – information that would tend to show that Guandique did not commit the murder that is required to be turned over to the defense by the prosecution. The definition of “exculpatory” includes information that could be used by the defense to impeach – to damage the credibility – of a witness. The prosecution provided little to no Brady information to the defense. At trial, Mr. Guandique was convicted of the murder of Ms. Levy.
After the trial, the defense filed a comprehensive motion detailing what it had found, that Morales had repeatedly lied during his testimony and that prosecutors knew or clearly should have known that he was lying. Not only had the prosecutors done nothing to stop Morales, they’d capitalized on the lies he told and used them to bolster their argument to the jury that he was telling the truth about Guandique’s purported confession and that he’d testified with no hope of receiving anything in return from the prosecution.
Only when it became clear that the trial judge was going to order the prosecutors to testify under oath, and the penalty of perjury, about what information they knew and when they knew it, did they agree to a new trial for Mr. Guandique.
There were no consequences for the prosecutors who were responsible for withholding the information from the defense and the jury showing that Morales was a liar. A new prosecution team was brought in for the second trial. They dismissed the case against Guandique when it was discovered that Morales, who had been released from prison, had admitted to someone that he’d lied when he testified that Guandique had confessed to him.
This sordid story is now at an end and there are harsh lessons to be learned from it. Morales was a dynamic witness at the first trial; without the reams of exculpatory information that the defense team would have used to shred his credibility, he was able to convince the jury that he was telling the truth. Prosecutors used the lies he told to argue that Morales’ testimony had the “ring of truth,” and that he had nothing to gain from his testimony. All of this was a lie.
The problem is that right now there is nothing to prevent prosecutors from doing the same thing to someone else charged with a crime. However, there are several steps that can be taken. First, the rules of discovery – those governing what information must be disclosed by the prosecution to the defense in a criminal case – must be changed.
“Open file” discovery, which is used in states such as Maryland, evens the playing field by providing the defense with all of the information possessed by the prosecution. Prosecutors who violate the law when they withhold exculpatory information should be fired and charged with a crime that fits their actions, obstruction of justice.
At sentencings in criminal cases, prosecutors love to talk about the deterrent effect of a conviction upon the defendant and others who might be thinking about committing similar crimes. Charging prosecutors who violate the law with a crime would have a strong deterrent effect on other prosecutors who might be considering withholding information that tends to show that a defendant is innocent. It would send a message that our Constitutional right to a fair trial actually means something.