United States v. Bowen
969 F. Supp. 2d 518
E.D. La.2012Background
- Defendants Bowen, Gisevius, Faulcon, Villavaso, and Kaufman were convicted after a multi-week trial on a redacted 25-count indictment arising from Danziger Bridge shootings and alleged post-event cover‑up.
- Several convictions were vacated for some defendants on certain counts.
- Defendants moved for a new trial based on alleged government leaks and online postings by AUSA Perricone and others intended to prejudice the trial.
- The government denied wrongdoing and urged that any Lohman plea leak would have become public regardless.
- The Court held hearings (June 2012 and following submissions) to investigate Rule 6(e) and related disclosures, ordered extensive government production, and considered limited discovery.
- Subsequent developments revealed Perricone’s and Mann’s online activity and the resulting civil suit against DOJ personnel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct based on leaks/public postings warrants Rule 33 relief | Kaufman argues leaks and online posts tainted the trial and violated Rule 6(e) | Defendants contend government misconduct prejudiced jurors and witnesses | No Rule 33 relief granted yet; the court requires complete DOJ investigation first before ruling |
| Whether Rule 6(e) violations and media leaks were proven to affect the grand jury or trial | Leads to constitutional/systemic prejudice; warrants scrutiny | Government attempts to minimize leaks; misconduct unproven to affect verdict | Court found potential Rule 6(e) concerns but not proven to require dismissal; ordered further investigation |
| Whether the DOJ should restart an independent investigation into Perricone/Mann and disclose findings | Independent inquiry needed due to conflicts and potential concealment | OPR review sufficient; internal investigation adequate | Court ordered DOJ to recommence investigation and report under Lance framework within 30 days; referenced potential for independent counsel if DOJ fails |
| Whether sealed/related emails should be disclosed to defense | Emails contain information relevant to misconduct and defense | Deliberative process/privacy concerns; need for protective order | DOSJA ordered production of most documents under protective terms except Document No. 19; some materials unsealed |
| Whether to refer Perricone/Mann conduct to disciplinary authorities | Serious professional misconduct with potential disciplinary consequences | Misconduct investigated by OPR; proceedings ongoing | The Court transmitted orders to LSBA and EDLA for further disciplinary action if warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Grand Jury Investigation (Lance), 610 F.2d 202 (5th Cir. 1980) (framework for analyzing Rule 6(e) disclosure misconduct and media reports)
- Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (U.S. 1972) (reporter's privilege and government leaks considerations)
- New York Times Co. v. Jascalevich, 439 U.S. 1301 (U.S. 1978) (discussion of reporter-source confidentiality relevance in criminal cases)
- In re Bruno, 956 So.2d 577 (La. 2007) (Louisiana attorney conduct related to silence regarding false statements)