Saying a federal judge overstepped his authority, an appeals court in Chicago on Tuesday ordered a halt to the judge’s inquiry into whether a federal prosecutor committed a crime by violating grand jury secrecy rules.
In a rare spat that became public last month, U.S. Atty. Patrick J. Fitzgerald had asked that U.S. District Judge James Holderman be removed from the matter, accusing him of displaying “a disturbing lack of objectivity.”
While saying in its ruling that “tempers have flared on both sides,” a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sided with Fitzgerald, finding no wrongdoing in the matter on the part of his office. The court also held that it was inappropriate for Holderman to investigate decision-making within the U.S. attorney’s office.
But Fitzgerald didn’t escape criticism from the court, which said the government petition to remove Holderman from the case “levels some overwrought charges.”
“A swift end to this contretemps will allow calmer reflection and, we trust, a restoration of the cordial and mutually respectful relations between bench and prosecutor that are vital to the administration of justice,” the court said.
The unusual dispute pitted Fitzgerald, the high-profile U.S. attorney, against Holderman, who is in line to succeed Charles Kocoras as chief judge.
In addition to threatening to hold one prosecutor in criminal contempt of court, Holderman had ordered a misconduct investigation of Fitzgerald and three assistants by the arm of the Justice Department that investigates allegations of wrongdoing by prosecutors.
The appeals court held that the Justice Department could do what it wanted but that it didn’t have to investigate “at the behest of the Judicial Branch.”
“Our legal system does not contemplate an inquisitorial role for federal judges,” said the ruling by Judges Frank Easterbrook, Daniel Manion and Michael Kanne. “This is a matter for the Executive Branch to handle internally using its own judgment.”
“The fundamental problem with this inquiry is that the United States attorney is not answerable to a judge for the deliberations among his staff,” the court said at another point in it eight-page decision.
In a statement, Holderman defended his handling of the dispute, saying, “I have and will continue to preside in this matter and all matters before me fairly and impartially.”
A statement from Fitzgerald applauded the appeals court decision but said it was unfortunate that the proceeding was necessary.
“Our attorneys represent the United States mindful of their heavy responsibilities to the public and the courts and will continue to do so,” Fitzgerald said.
The dispute has its roots in a criminal investigation, begun in 2000, into health-care fraud at Chicago’s Edgewater Hospital and the death of a patient, Albert Okaro.
The investigation led to the conviction of seven doctors and hospital administrators. Peter Rogan, a health-care executive, was investigated but never charged.
In December 2003, an assistant U.S. attorney obtained a court order allowing her to turn over some grand jury material regarding Rogan to attorneys for the Okaro family, who were suing Rogan in state court.
That angered Rogan’s attorneys, who weren’t told about the request in advance and never had a chance to oppose it in court. In May, they complained to Holderman, who agreed to investigate whether the prosecutor had violated grand jury rules.
On Tuesday, the appeals court ended Holderman’s criminal inquiry, saying it found no reason to believe that the prosecutor had violated grand jury secrecy rules, since a judge had agreed to release the material.
Holderman said the prosecutor had failed to cite certain key legal precedents when asking for the order, but the appeals court disagreed that those court decisions prevented the prosecutor from releasing the grand jury materials without first notifying the other side.
Holderman, a federal judge for almost 20 years, has been criticized by lawyers for sometimes displaying an angry demeanor on the bench. In a filing to the appeals court, the judge acknowledged being “gruff in my tone and blunt in my remarks” at times, adding, “I have tried over the years to control this on the bench with varying success.”
