Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


July 11, 2001


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dalzell, District Judge


Defendant Whittaker was indicted for mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, on the theory that he participated in the "insurance give up" of his leased 1998 Jeep Cherokee to a vehicle chop shop. By a Memorandum and Order dated June 12, 2001, we granted Whittaker's motion to disqualify the Eastern District of Pennsylvania United States Attorney's Office from further participation in this prosecution as a result of certain ethical breaches associated with the fact that one Assistant United States Attorney sent Whittaker a letter stating that he was a "victim" of the same chop shop operation that he is here accused of criminally associating with. The Government has now moved for reconsideration of that disqualification Order.

The Government's Motion

The Government raises four separate arguments in seeking reconsideration of our disqualification Order. First, it argues that, contrary to our findings, the Government's conduct did not violate Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 4.1, 4.3(c), or 8.4(d). Second, it contends that even to the extent that there was any Rule violation, disqualification is not warranted here, as the actions surrounding the "victim letter" did not create trial prejudice for Whittaker. Third, the Government maintains that the fact that an Assistant United States Attorney may be a witness in this action does not create a ground for disqualification. Finally, the Government contends that, as a fundamental matter, we may not direct which prosecutor presents a case, because to do so would violate the Constitutional scheme of separation of powers.

Standard for Reconsideration

While the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not contain a rule specifically discussing motions for reconsideration, particularly not from the Government, our Local Rule of Criminal Procedure 1.2 adopts for use in criminal cases Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(g), which states that "[m]otions for reconsideration or reargument shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after the entry of the judgment, order, or decree concerned"; see also, e.g., Rankin v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 936, 942 (3d Cir. 1985) ("Regardless how it is styled, a motion filed within ten days of entry of judgment questioning the correctness of a judgment may be treated as a motion . . . under Rule 59(e)."). Absent guidance under the criminal rules, we look to the jurisprudence under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) for guidance in considering this motion.

The purpose of a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is to "correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence," Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), though a motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to reargue a case or to ask a court to rethink a decision it has made, e.g. Wayne v. First Citizen's Nat. Bank, 846 F. Supp. 310, 314 (M.D.Pa.), aff'd, 31 F.3d 1175 (3d Cir. 1994) (table); Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D.Pa. 1993). Indeed, reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be given sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources, e.g. Pennsylvania Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Trabosh, 812 F. Supp. 522, 524 (E.D.Pa. 1992); see also Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995). Under Rule 59(e), a party must rely on one of three grounds to alter or amend a judgment: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [issued the earlier order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice", Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999); see also, e.g., Nissim v. McNeil Consumer Products Co, Inc., 957 F. Supp. 600, 601 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd, 135 F.3d 765 (3d Cir. 1997) (table); Smith v. City of Chester, 155 F.R.D. 95, 96-97 (E.D.Pa. 1994).

It seems clear from the content of the Government's motion that it does not purport to bring to our attention any change in the controlling law or any new evidence. Therefore, the question we must here address is whether the Government has identified a "clear error of law or fact" in our Memorandum and Order of June 12, 2001 or has demonstrated that "manifest injustice" would arise from our failure to reconsider.*fn1 We will consider the Government's arguments in turn.*fn2

Violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct

A. Rule 4.1

Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 4.1 provides in part:

Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person. . . .

In our June 12, 2001 Memorandum, we found that the Government's conduct violated Rule 4.1(a), since the Government's subsequent arguments and statements demonstrate that the January 29, 2001 "victim letter" sent to Whittaker by AUSA Robert Reed was "a palpable falsehood", Mem. of June 12, 2001 at 10.

In seeking reconsideration of this finding, the Government argues that AUSA Reed's conduct cannot constitute a violation of Rule 4.1(a) because Reed's conduct was not "knowing". In support, the Government observes that the "Terminology" section of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional states that "`Knowingly', `Known', or `Knows' denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances." The Government goes on to argue that there is no evidence that AUSA Reed specifically knew that he was sending a letter to Whittaker, and that his action was therefore not "knowing". The Government also points in this regard to our findings that AUSA Reed had no "specific intent to deceive", Mem. of June 12, 2001 at 12, and that the Government did not have "bad faith or malintent", Mem. of June 12, 2001 at 21.*fn3

We cannot find that the Government has identified a clear error of law or fact with respect to Rule 4.1(a). We begin by rehearsing some of the evidence. At the May 24, 2001 hearing, AUSA Reed testified that he knew, from his ongoing investigation into chop shops, that twenty percent of all vehicles "chopped" were in fact "insurance give ups", vehicles whose owners turned the vehicles over to the chop shop, N.T. at 23-24. In the process of preparing the "victim letters", which were sent to those individuals whose vehicles had been chopped, AUSA Reed told the paralegal who was working on the victim letter project not to send victim letters to those identified as potential insurance fraud perpetrators, and in furtherance of this showed ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.