Ill-Fated Motion is Latest Twist in Ed Jew Case

We like lawyer letters, especially when they’re not addressed to us. So we especially loved the one San Francisco defense attorney Stuart Hanlon sent to a federal prosecutor on behalf of his client, Ed Jew, the guy who probably holds the record for fewest days between being sworn into public office and indicted.

Hanlon asked for an evidentiary hearing last month to explore circumstances surrounding the government and Jew’s former lawyer. That attorney, Steven Gruel, contacted the FBI on behalf of state Sen. Leland Yee, so Yee could tip off the FBI about Jew’s corruption. Gruel then took on Jew as a client, and apparently had him sign a conflict waiver (which of course makes it all OK!).

Hanlon argued his client needed a hearing to see whether the government behaved badly.  His filing was dutifully reported in the media.

But a few days before Hanlon dialed up PACER, he sent a draft (.pdf) to assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Wang, along with a letter to see whether any “gross omissions or errors in my factual analysis” needed correcting. “I want to be very careful to not misstate facts,” Hanlon continued. “I am not extending the same offer to review to Mr. Gruel or Mr. Yee.”

Our favorite part came at the end. Having sent over a pleading which was sure to spark news stories that weren’t exactly friendly to the government, Hanlon wrote: “I remain open to trying to settle this case; I sent you a guideline review earlier this week and have not yet heard back from you on it.”

Wang responded, asking Hanlon to reconsider the motion. But the prosecutor’s letter didn’t reach the defense attorney until after he had already made the filing. The government then argued in court filings (.pdf) that Yee is not a witness in the case, was never called to the grand jury, and that Yee never had an attorney client relationship with Gruel. The government did nothing wrong, prosecutors said, so Hanlon’s request for a hearing has no merit.

Reached Thursday, Hanlon said he would not have filed the motion in the first place had the government cleared up the facts. But he says he’s not going to withdraw it, either, but wouldn’t explain his reasoning. He dismissed the idea that the gambit was designed to gain any kind of settlement leverage.

“I think if there had been misconduct by the government, it may be leverage,” he said, but, having read the government’s papers, he’s convinced there was no misconduct by prosecutors. Still, he said, he felt he had a duty to the client to bring the motion, which Hanlon said has precipitated upset phone calls from friends of Gruel.

Judge Susan Illston will hear arguments tomorrow, and Hanlon said he is fully expecting to lose.

—  Dan Levine