DERSHOWITZ: I repeatedly called Mr. Sagor. I repeatedly asked him, "What do you have? What have you turned up? Do you have anything about Leuci's crimes?"
I was interested in getting every bit of evidence. Then, when we found out there was a piece of evidence that indicated some knowledge by the government pretrial, I was very excited about it. I may also have colored my view by the following:
I am an experienced Supreme Court practitioner, much more than in any other court. I know and I believed that our chances of getting a new trial were much better in the Supreme Court if we were able to get the information to them at this point than they would be if we went through the route of a hearing and a trial motion and denial of the hearing and appellate review.
I know the Supreme Court on occasion will take a look at a case and say to itself, "My God, there is really injustice here," and simply in the exercise of their special power to do justice in Federal cases, to reverse and to remand. I was banking on that. I was hoping for that. That's why I was very upset professionally, and my client was very upset, when we learned several days after the Supreme Court had disposed of the case that there was this peice of information that had not been given to us.
It seemed to us that it was our decision and not the government's decision whether to bring that piece of material to the Supreme Court. The Court may have agreed it was frivolous or not significant. What would the harm have been? At least then the Supreme Court would have had it and with full knowledge. That was my state of mind at the time. I did not intend, and I certainly did not intend, to accuse a particular person of anything. I know the high regard with which you hold the United States Attorney's office.
COURT: I think I should tell you that it is not because I was member of the United States Attorney's staff itself but because the United States Attorneys in this district over the years-and this one in particular I might say-continuously have set high standards of professional integrity. Certainly my information goes back to 1953, and I know that having heard people talk about the United States Attorneys in this district. The office has a very long tradition of integrity, and I really must tell you I have not seen one iota of evidence in this situation of any improper conduct. I mean by that that it is perfectly apparent to me that when a man testified about three or four instances in which the amount of thievery was between $4000 and $6000--I have forgotten--that another $50 was not going to tip the balance.
However, I really think that since the record is now clear as to what you meant to impute to the United States Attorney, and the sense in which you used the word "deliberate," I don't think I will pursue the matter any further.
DERSHOWITZ: I appreciate that.
COURT: You know, gentlemen, we really live at a time when government officials of all kinds have come in to disrepute, some of them very deservedly, but I really think that to unjustly attack a public official who has not earned that certainly is not in accordance with the responsibilities owing by a member of the bar. Frankly, I understood your use of the word "deliberate" in a more vernacular sense that the language of the case you read.
As I say, since you have indicated the sense in which you used it, certainly, over the time I have known you, this and other matters, I accept your word.
The matter is closed.
(Time noted: 5.00 p.m.)