In Re Special Proceedings, 825 F. Supp. 2d 203

In 2008, Senator Stevens was indicted, tried, and convicted of making false statements for failing to disclose gifts on Senate Financial Disclosure Forms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
During and after the Stevens trial, serious prosecutorial misconduct allegations arose, prompting scrutiny of the government's conduct and constitutional obligations.
On April 1, 2009, the DOJ moved to set aside the verdict and dismiss the indictment with prejudice after acknowledging some misconduct and Brady/Giglio violations.
On April 7, 2009, the Court appointed Henry F. Schuelke, III to investigate possible criminal contempt by six DOJ prosecutors and to prosecute such contempt proceedings if appropriate.
Schuelke and colleague Shields reviewed vast records, interviewed witnesses, and concluded systemic concealment of exculpatory evidence that could have aided Stevens’ defense and undermined key government testimony.
Schuelke did not recommend criminal contempt prosecutions, citing the absence of a clear and unequivocal order requiring adherence to discovery obligations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a clear order imposing discovery duties	Stevens/Stevens’ counsel and the court relied on prosecutors' assurances.	Prosecutors acted in good faith under existing obligations; no explicit order was issued.	No clear and unequivocal order existed.
Whether the misconduct constitutes contempt despite no clear order	Systemic concealment violated due process and Brady/Giglio duties.	Contempt requires a clear order; absence of such precludes contempt.	Contempt prosecution not recommended.
Public access to Schuelke's Report	Public interest demands disclosure of findings and misconduct.	Protective orders and sealed materials support restricted disclosure.	Report partially restricted; full public release deferred pending DOJ review and objections.
Procedural handling of sealing and unsealing materials	Public interest favors transparency.	Need to balance with sealed materials and ongoing DOJ review under protective orders.	Court ordered controlled unsealing and selective dissemination with confidentiality safeguards.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violates due process)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972) (expands Brady to impeachment evidence and witness credibility)
Traub v. United States, 232 F.2d 43 (D.C. Cir. 1955) (criminal contempt requires a clear and unequivocal order)
Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (public access considerations in court proceedings)
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (presumption of openness can be overcome only by overriding interests)
In re North, 16 F.3d 1234 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (factors for releasing a special prosecutor's report to the public)