Opinion: Even Stevens

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

One of my favorite lines about the law comes from a professor I had years ago: Referring to famous Supreme Court decisions, he said: ‘We don’t read the great cases; the great cases read us.’

So do the not-so-great cases. The Justice Department’s agreement to void former Sen. Ted Stevens’ corruption conviction has generated an array of interpretations, some more convincing than others, that have seized on the breaking news to make larger points.

I agree with my colleague Jon Healey that Stevens’ good luck is not an exoneration of the politics of pork he personified. I disagree with the suggestion by Gov. Sarah Palin that the Democrat who beat Stevens after his conviction should resign to prepare the way for a rematch in which, presumably, Stevens could argue that he should be returned to the Senate because of errors by the prosecution. (Usually Republicans don’t like to see defendants set free on legal ‘technicalities,’ let alone get another shot at a Senate seat.)

I also think it’s a stretch for the New York Times editorial writers to try to connect the ineptitude of prosecutors in the Stevens trial with the Bush Justice Department’s supposed conspiracy against Democratic politicians. More plausible (though still a bit contrived) is the argument by former New Jersey Attorney General John Farmer that the bungling of the Stevens prosecution is part of a larger phenomenon of overzealous prosecutors -- including Patrick Fitzgerald -- and loosely written anti-corruption statutes.

My own take is more modest: Stevens’ conviction is being set aside because the government goofed. Any regular viewer of ‘Law and Order’ knows that the prosecution is obliged to give the defense evidence -- like prosecutors’ notes of an interview with a witness against Stevens -- that might help the defense. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a screwup is just a screwup.