A former Alaska lawmaker asked a federal judge on Tuesday to throw out his corruption conviction because the same prosecutors in former Sen. Ted Stevens‘ case withheld evidence from his lawyer, The Associated Press reports.

Peter Kott, who was convicted in 2007 of taking bribes to ram through legislation favorable to the oil industry, said after a court hearing that the prosecutors “obviously didn’t play fair.”

Kott, who served seven terms in Juneau, was found guilty of conspiracy, bribery and extortion. He was sentenced to six years in prison but was released in June, after prosecutors acknowledged they failed to turn over material favorable to his defense.

Kott and former state Rep. Victor Korhring, who was also found guilty of accepting bribes, are free pending the completion of a Justice Department review of their cases.

Prosecutors admitted evidence was improperly withheld but said no harm came of it.

“This was a case that had overwhelming evidence,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney James Trusty, according to The AP.

Kott’s lawyer, Sheryl Gordon McCloud,  said the court should overturn the convictions, arguing that prosecutors acted in bad faith.

Kott was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph Bottini and James Goeke, as well as Former Public Integrity Section lawyers Nicholas Marsh and Edward Sullivan.

A court-appointed counsel and the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility are investigating the prosecutors’ handling of evidence in the Stevens case, which was dismissed at Attorney General Erich Holder’s request.

Judge John Sedwick is reviewing the Kott case. He could let the convictions stand, dismiss them and order a new trial, or dismiss them with prejudice. Sedwick did not say when he would rule.

Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate panel today that the Justice Department is not prepared to work with Congress to probe the fatal Nov. 5 shootings at Fort Hood, Texas,  until federal law enforcement authorities have a better understanding of the crimes allegedly perpetrated by Maj. Nidal Hasan.

The FBI and the military are in the early stages of investigating the shootings at the Army base near Killeen, Texas. Holder, speaking at a wide-ranging Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing for the Justice Department, said federal authorities are still trying to sort out all of the facts in the case.

“Once we have a handle on that, we can work with the committee to propose ways to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again,” Holder said.

There are few reported details on what caused Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, allegedly to kill 13 people at the military base. But federal authorities have been investigating e-mail conversations between Hasan and Anwar al-Awalki, a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen. Holder said at the hearing that the e-mails are “disturbing.”

Members of Congress have pushed for immediate hearings on the massacre. Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will hold a hearing tomorrow on the shootings, but no Obama administration officials are slated to testify.

Aides from the Justice and Defense departments have briefed senior members of Congress in closed door meetings, according to The Washington Post. Lieberman is also slated to meet with Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates this afternoon, according to Politico.

The Obama administration has made it clear to lawmakers that it doesn’t want Congress interfering with its probe of the shootings at this time, according to The Post.

“I want a successful prosecution, but I also want to know what happened,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said at today’s hearing.

Former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey on Tuesday during a radio interview with The Washington Times joked that Rep. James Moran (D-Va.) “ought to get professional help, perhaps from Maj. Nidal [Hasan],” the accused Fort Hood shooter, The Huffington Post reports.

Last week, Moran criticized opponents of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his Sept. 11, 2001, co-defendants in the Southern District of New York, Talking Points Memo reported. “They see this as an opportunity to demagogue,” Moran told TPM. “They will seize on any opportunity to do that, and that means they’ll even take a stand that’s un-American.” He added, “It’s un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial. It’s against our principles as a nation.”

During his interview, Mukasay was asked to respond to Moran’s comments. “I think he’s lost touch with reality. He ought to get professional help, perhaps from Maj. Nidal.” Last week, Mukasey slammedthe decision to try Mohammed in New York City.

Attorney General Eric Holder told senators today that a long-awaited ethics report on the conduct of former Justice Department lawyers who authorized the use of harsh interrogation “should be ready at the end of the month.”

Holder, speaking at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, said a career prosecutor is looking over the Office of Professional Responsibility report for the last time.

“The report is complete and being reviewed now and is in its last stages,” Holder said in response to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

In June, the Attorney General said the report, now more than four years in the making, would be ready in a “matter of weeks.� Today, Holder said the effort took longer than anticipated because the Justice Department afforded lawyers representing the subjects of the report time to respond to its conclusions.

The report looks at whether legal advice in the memos that authorize harsh interrogation techniques met professional standards required of Justice Department lawyers. The Office of Professional Responsibility’s findings are said to be harshly critical of Jay Bybee, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and John Yoo, a former deputy.

It is still unclear when and to what extent the report will be made public.

REMARKS AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

ERIC HOLDER BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Nov. 18, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C.

When I appeared before this committee in January for my confirmation hearing, I laid out several goals for my time as Attorney General: to protect the security of the American people, restore the integrity of the Department of Justice, reinvigorate the Department’s traditional mission, and most of all, to make decisions based on the facts and the law, with no regard for politics. In my first oversight hearing in June, I described my early approach to these issues.

Five months later, we are deeply immersed in the challenges of the day, moving forward to make good on my promises to the committee and the president’s promises to the American people.

First and foremost, we are working day and night to protect the American people. Due to the vigilance of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, we have uncovered and averted a number of serious threats to domestic and international security. Recent arrests in New York, Chicago, Springfield, and Dallas, are evidence of our success in identifying nascent plots and stopping would-be attackers before they strike.

Violence can still occur, however, as evidenced by the recent tragic shootings at Fort Hood. We mourn the deaths of 13 brave Americans, including Dr. Libardo Caraveo, a psychologist with the Justice Department’s Bureau of Prisons who had been recalled to active duty. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is working diligently to help gather evidence that will be used by military prosecutors in the upcoming trial of the individual who is alleged to have committed this heinous act.

We are also seeking to learn from this incident to prevent its reoccurrence. Future dangerousness is notoriously difficult to predict. The president has ordered a full review to determine if there was more that could have been done to prevent the tragedy that unfolded in Texas two weeks ago. We have briefed the chairman and ranking member of this committee and other congressional leaders on our efforts, and will continue to keep Congress abreast of this review.

My written statement addresses a number of other issues before the Department, but I would like to use the rest of the time allotted to me today to address a topic that I know is on many of your minds – my decision last week to refer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others for prosecution in federal courts for their participation in the 9/11 plot.

As I said on Friday, I knew this decision would be controversial. This was a tough call, and reasonable people can disagree with my conclusion that these individuals should be tried in federal court rather than a military commission.

The 9/11 attacks were both an act of war and a violation of our federal criminal law, and they could have been prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions. Courts and commissions are both essential tools in our fight against terrorism. Therefore, at the outset of my review of these cases, I had no preconceived views as to the merits of either venue, and in fact on the same day that I sent these five defendants to federal court, I referred five others to be tried in military commissions. I am a prosecutor, and as a prosecutor my top priority was simply to select the venue where the government will have the greatest opportunity to present the strongest case in the best forum.

I studied this issue extensively. I consulted the Secretary of Defense. I heard from prosecutors from my Department and from the Defense Department’s Office of Military Commissions. I spoke to victims on both sides of the question. I asked a lot of questions and weighed every alternative. And at the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in federal court.

I know there are members of this committee, and members of the public, who have strong feelings on both sides. There are some who disagree with the decision to try the alleged Cole bomber and several others in a military commission, just as there are some who disagree with prosecuting the 9/11 plotters in federal court.

Despite these disagreements, I hope we can have an open, honest, and informed discussion about that decision today, and as part of that discussion, I would like to clear up some of the misinformation that I have seen since Friday.

First, we know that we can prosecute terrorists in our federal courts safely and securely because we have been doing it for years. There are more than 300 convicted international and domestic terrorists currently in Bureau of Prisons custody, including those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the attacks on our embassies in Africa. Our courts have a long history of handling these cases, and no district has a longer history than the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. I have talked to Mayor Bloomberg of New York, and both he and the Police Commissioner Ray Kelly believe that we can safely hold these trials in New York.

Second, we can protect classified material during trial. The Classified Information Procedures Act, or CIPA, establishes strict rules and procedures for the use of classified information at trial, and we have used it to protect classified information in a range of terrorism cases. In fact, the standards recently adopted by Congress to govern the use of classified information in military commissions are derived from the very CIPA rules that we use in federal court.

Third, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have no more of a platform to spew his hateful ideology in federal court than he would have in military commissions. Before the commissions last year, he declared the proceedings an “inquisition,� condemned his own attorneys and our Constitution, and professed his desire to become a martyr. Those proceedings were heavily covered in the media, yet few complained at the time that his rants threatened the fabric of our democracy.

Judges in federal court have firm control over the conduct of defendants and other participants in their courtrooms, and when the 9/11 conspirators are brought to trial, I have every confidence that the presiding judge will ensure appropriate decorum. And if KSM makes the same statements he made in his military commission proceedings, I have every confidence the nation and the world will see him for the coward he is. I’m not scared of what KSM will have to say at trial – and no one else needs to be either.

Fourth, there is nothing common about the treatment the alleged 9/11 conspirators will receive. In fact, I expect to direct prosecutors to seek the ultimate and most uncommon penalty for these heinous crimes. And I expect that they will be held in custody under Special Administrative Measures reserved for the most dangerous criminals.

Finally, there are some who have said this decision means that we have reverted to a pre-9/11 mentality, or that we don’t realize this nation is at war. Three weeks ago, I had the honor of joining the President at Dover Air Force Base for the dignified transfer of the remains of eighteen Americans, including three DEA agents, who lost their lives to the war in Afghanistan. The brave soldiers and agents carried home on that plane gave their lives to defend this country and its values, and we owe it to them to do everything we can to carry on the work for which they sacrificed.

I know that we are at war.

I know that we are at war with a vicious enemy who targets our soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan and our civilians on the streets here at home. I have personally witnessed that somber fact in the faces of the families who have lost loved ones abroad, and I have seen it in the daily intelligence stream I review each day. Those who suggest otherwise are simply wrong.

Prosecuting the 9/11 defendants in federal court does not represent some larger judgment about whether or not we are at war. We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power – civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and others – to win. We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.

We will also use every instrument of our national power to bring to justice those responsible for terrorist attacks against our people. For eight years, justice has been delayed for the victims of the 9/11 attacks. It has been delayed even further for the victims of the attack on the USS Cole. No longer. No more delays. It is time, it is past time, to act. By bringing prosecutions in both our courts and military commissions, by seeking the death penalty, by holding these terrorists responsible for their actions, we are finally taking ultimate steps toward justice. That is why I made this decision.

In making this and every other decision I have made as Attorney General, my paramount concern is the safety of the American people and the preservation of American values. I am confident this decision meets those goals, and that it will withstand the judgment of history.

Thank you.

Benjamin David (gov)

Benjamin David, the district attorney for New Hanover and Pender counties in North Carolina, on Wednesday announced that he is removing his name from consideration for nomination as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Wilmington television station WECT reports.

David was one of three people that Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) had recommended to President Obama. The other two people are Hampton Dellinger, a partner at the Chapel Hill law firm of  Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, and Thomas Walker, a partner at the Charlotte law firm of  Alston and Bird.

David cited his desire to remain in the DA’s office, among other personal and professional reasons, for his decision to withdraw from consideration, WECT reported. According to the television station, David said he plans to run for re-election as district attorney next year.

Obama has yet to name a nominee, which might be due in part to the fact that Hagan has said she wants the current Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney, George Holding, to stay in office until he can complete probes of two prominent Democrats: former Gov. Mike Easley and former Sen.  John Edwards.

Attorney General Eric Holder this morning defended his decision to try 9/11 “mastermind” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (often simply referred to by his initials, KSM) and four other suspected terrorists at a New York City federal court. He was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Eric Holder (DOJ)

Holder announced Friday that he would have federal attorneys from the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia prosecute the alleged terrorists in New York and not in a military court. He also said he would have five other suspected terrorists tried before military commissions.

“We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power — civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic and others — to win,” Holder said in his prepared opening statement before the Senate panel. “We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm and our people are ready.”

The panel’s ranking Republican, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said at the hearing that all suspected terrorists should be tried in military courts.

“I believe this decision is dangerous,� Sessions said in his opening statement. “I believe it is misguided. I believe it is unnecessary.�

Holder said his decision was a “tough call” and knew “reasonable people” would disagree with his judgment.

“As I said on Friday, I knew this decision would be controversial,” Holder said.

The Attorney General said terrorists have been “safely and securely” prosecuted in federal courts, and that classified material would be protected. Holder said that KSM would have “no more of a platform to spew his hateful ideology in federal court than he would have in military commissions.”

Holder added that there is “nothing common” about how the government will treat the suspected terrorists and said the Justice Department is not reverting to a “pre-9/11 mentality.” The Attorney General said he will advise the prosecutors to seek the death penalty.

“It is time, it is past time, to act,” Holder said. “By bringing prosecutions in both our courts and military commissions, by seeking the death penalty, by holding these terrorists responsible for their actions, we are finally taking ultimate steps toward justice. That is why I made this decision.”

The Attorney General drew chuckles from the audience when he responded to a question from Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) about what the Justice Department would do if the suspected terrorists tried in federal court weren’t convicted.

“Failure is not an option,� Holder said. “These are cases that have to be won.� He later clarified his remarks and said the suspected terrorists would not be set free if they weren’t convicted.

Panel Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said he has “great confidence� in the ability of civilian courts to handle the terrorism cases.

“War crimes, crimes of terror, and murder can successfully be prosecuted in our federal courts, as we have demonstrated time and again,� Leahy said in his opening statement. “America’s response to these acts is not to cower in fear, but to show the world that we are strong, resilient and determined.�

This post has been updated from an earlier version.

Members of Congress introduced legislation in the House and Senate Tuesday to improve retirement benefits for rank-and-file federal prosecutors.

The approximately 5,500 Assistant U.S. Attorneys around the country receive fewer retirement benefits than corrections and probation officers — a fact that has long rankled the prosecutors.

The bipartisan Enhanced Restitution Enforcement And Equitable Treatment Act of 2009 would bring AUSA retirement assistance in line with benefits for other law enforcement officials. The bill would also improve Justice Department efforts to collect fines and other money owed to the federal government in order to help fund the retirement benefits.

“Having served as a prosecutor for many years in Vermont, I know well the integral role prosecutors play in the administration of justice and keeping our communities safe,� Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who introduced the bill in the Senate, said in a statement. “By enhancing the retirement benefits for these prosecutors, we make service as an Assistant U.S Attorney a more attractive path for talented young lawyers who are considering public service.�

Congress has mulled legislation on AUSA retirement benefits for the past decade. In the last Congress, retirement assistance bills in the Senate and House did not move out of committee.

More recently, “fallout” from the botched corruption case against former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), in which prosecutors from the Public Integrity Section at Main Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s office in Alaska are under investigation for errors that led to withholding of exculpatory evidence from the defense, may have contributed to delays in introducing the legislation, according to an account on the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys Web site.

Steven Cook, president of NAASUA, said an improved retirement benefit package is the “single most important issue” for AUSAs. His organization, which serves as a voice for AUSAs in the 94 U.S. Attorney offices, met earlier this year with members of Congress and Attorney General Eric Holder about AUSA retirement assistanc

“It being introduced, in the House and Senate, is especially important to our members,” Cook, an AUSA in the Eastern District of Tennessee, told Main Justice.

The Senate bill is sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a former chairman of the Judiciary panel, in addition to Leahy. The House legislation is sponsored by Reps. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), who are both members of the House Judiciary Committee.

A finalist for Southern District of Florida U.S. Attorney once helped put phony court documents in the public docket at the request of state prosecutors, an apparent violation of state law, the Broward Bulldog news Web site reported last week.

Daryl Trawick (Gov)

Daryl Trawick, a judge in Dade County, Fla., had the clerk’s office at the county court alter the public docket in 2002 to shield an informant in a drug case, the news site said. Then, he kept a parallel secret docket to know what was really happening in the case, the site said.

The fake entries made it seem as if drug charges had been lifted against the informant, Salim Batrony, even though in reality he’d pleaded guilty to money laundering, the news site said.

Florida law prohibits anyone from making changes to court records or proceedings. A violator could face up to a year in prison.

A Tarwick spokesperson declined to comment to the Broward Bulldog. But, according to the Web site, the judge admitted to modifying the court docket in a statement to the Miami Herald a couple years ago.

Florida’s Judicial Qualifications Commission found no evidence of unlawful activity after it launched a probe into the phony documents, according to the news Web site. The records, however, had been erased from the public docket before the investigation, and the panel never requested saved copies of the phony documents, the Broward Bulldog said.

David Buckner (Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton)

David Buckner, another finalist for the U.S. Attorney post, also played a role in a similar case, according to the Broward Bulldog.

The former Southern District Assistant U.S. Attorney assisted in secret legal proceedings that involved Mohamed Kamel Bellahouel, who was detained by federal authorities for months following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and filed a habeas corpus petition to contest his captivity, according to the news Web site.

The court proceedings only became public after a court error. Similar court activity is traditionally open to the public. News of the secret proceedings started a national discussion on court secrecy, according to the news Web site.

Buckner, a partner at Miami’s Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton law firm, told the Broward Bulldog he was prohibited from discussing the legal proceedings.

Wifredo Ferrer, an assistant Dade County, Fla., attorney, is also a finalist for the U.S. Attorney post. The names of the finalists were leaked in July.

Eric Holder (Photo by Ryan J. Reilly / Main Justice).

Attorney General Eric Holder has made clear he plans to seek the death penalty in the federal prosecution of the alleged Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism plotters in New York, even though the state of New York does not have a death penalty law.

Although the U.S. can impose a death penalty in federal cases regardless of state law, Holder may be “treading into territory that triggered an outcry from liberal activists against the Bush administration not so long ago” writes Josh Gerstein of Politico in a piece that fleshes out the intricacies of the case.

He recalls that when former Attorney General John Ashcroft sought a death penalty prosecution in Vermont in 2002, critics were outraged that he was abusing federal authority by forcing the death penalty on a state that did not have capital punishment on the books.

Many New Yorkers have welcomed Holder’s decision to seek death in connection with the 9/11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. However, it is the case that the Justice Department will be seeking capital punishment in a state that does not have that option in state courts.

Writes Gerstein: “New York enacted a death penalty law most recently in 1995, so it was actually in effect at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. However, that death penalty law was struck down by the state’s top court in 2004. An effort to re-enact the death penalty in 2005 was voted down in the legislature.”