Crime & Law
Former Federal Prosecutors Talk Andrew Boutros, Collapse of ‘Broadview Six’ Case
More than 100 former federal prosecutors published an open letter Monday blasting Chicago’s U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros, claiming he “tarnished the reputation” of the office in the wake of the botched “Broadview Six” case.
The letter, signed by 111 ex-prosecutors who worked in the Northern District of Illinois office, shares their “heartbreaking” concerns over a mass exodus of prosecutors, grand jury “irregularities,” and breaches of trust with judges as more and more cases have fallen apart since Boutros — a Trump administration appointee — took over last spring.
Patrick Collins and John Gallo, two former assistant U.S. attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois and signatories to the letter, joined “Chicago Tonight” to explain the rationale behind their message.
WTTW News: What did Andrew Boutros’ office do wrong in the grand jury proceedings for the ‘Broadview Six’ case?
Gallo: Vouching by the assistant U.S. attorney in the grand jury. Basically saying, from a personal perspective, she (Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheri Mecklenburg) believed the case was meritorious. Talking to grand jurors outside the grand jury room. Excluding jurors, which she didn’t have the power to do anyway, but excluding jurors, asking them to be excluded if they were skeptical about the charges. And then there were issues later with redactions.
What was your reaction when you learned about this alleged misconduct?
Collins: Judge (April) Perry, an experienced judge but also a former federal prosecutor, said she had never seen anything like this in terms of the misconduct in the grand jury. … I think the reason that I signed the letter was that I love that office — it was some of the best professional moments of my life. It wasn’t perfect. A lot of great people there, a lot of great people there today, and I think part of our message was for the young prosecutors. You know, do the job, hold the standard. In Judge Perry’s eyes, there was a diminution of the standard.
Why might the attorneys have taken the step to redact a grand jury transcript before giving it to a judge?
Gallo: I’m still befuddled as to what they thought they were doing when they submitted redacted transcripts other than to try and hide from the court things that happened in the grand jury. There’s this expression that if someone tries to hide something, it’s evidence and consciousness of guilt. So I think that everyone looking back — hindsight’s 20/20 — but if they’d just given the transcripts from the beginning, it would’ve been much better for them.
How does this behavior differ from what you knew the U.S. attorney’s office to be like when you worked there?
Gallo: This particular circumstance and this particular case, I’m hoping, is an isolated example because the things that happened in that context — talking to grand jurors about the case outside the grand jury room, personally vouching for the validity of the case — those kinds of things were frankly unheard of prior to this.
Collins: What I saw in those grand jury transcripts, the grand jury is a sacred place. It’s actually where investigators go to present evidence and make your case better. It’s said that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, and it goes to the control the prosecutors have over the process. What we saw in this case is that these grand jurors were asking good questions. They wanted to know the facts. They wanted to understand what a conspiracy is. It’s the very questions that, if I heard as a prosecutor when I was there, I would use to make my case better. But there was a rush to get the case indicted. But this grand jury was working. I was so proud to read these grand jurors’ questions because it showed they were actually doing their job. And they were being run over by the prosecutors, which is extraordinarily rare from my 12 years there.
Is Boutros free of blame here? Should he have known that his attorneys were behaving this way?
Collins: He’s the leader of the office. And so the buck stops with him. It stopped with every U.S. attorney that I ever served under. The facts will play out. … I don’t know what Mr. Boutros knew and when. That’s not my job. There are some very good lawyers who will figure that out if need be. I think what he absolutely is responsible for is the tone and tenor of the office.
Andrew Boutros has said that he and his office have acted irrespective of politics. You all clearly disagree with that.
Collins: We think it’s a serious concern that should be raised. I mean, there’s a Justice manual that has to be followed by everybody. The people who signed this letter — there were seven decades of people. Offices were never perfect. It’s about how you did that job. And I think what brought us all together was the standard of doing that job. And I overlap with Andrew, he’s a very competent lawyer, he knows how the standards should be followed. I think that’s what we were really writing about.
What do you think Andrew Boutros should do to go about restoring his office’s reputation?
Gallo: First of all, acknowledge and accept what is true, which is that these prosecutions were flawed, and to recognize them as having been flawed and say, ‘We’re gonna fix this,’ and explain how he’s gonna fix it.
