Page:Durham Report.pdf/16

away from pursuing justifiable cases solely due to the popularity of the defendant or the controversial nature of the government’s case.

The Principles of Federal Prosecution provide the following pertinent guidance on this point, which informed the Special Counsel’s charging and declination decisions:

Where the law and the facts create a sound, prosecutable case, the likelihood of an acquittal due to unpopularity of some aspect of the prosecution or because of the overwhelming popularity of the defendant or his/her cause is not a factor prohibiting prosecution. For example, in a civil rights case or a case involving an extremely popular political figure, it might be clear that the evidence of guilt­—viewed objectively by an unbiased factfinder—would be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, yet the prosecutor might reasonably doubt, based on the circumstances, that the jury would convict. In such a case, despite his/her negative assessment of the likelihood of a guilty verdict (based on factors extraneous to an objective view of the law and the facts), the prosecutor may properly conclude that it is necessary and appropriate to commence or recommend prosecution and allow the criminal process to operate in accordance with the principles set forth here.^[1]

The decision of whether to bring criminal charges in any given matter thus is a complicated one that is neither entirely subjective nor mechanistic. If this report and the outcome of the Special Counsel’s investigation leave some with the impression that injustices or misconduct have gone unaddressed, it is not because the Office concluded that no such injustices or misconduct occurred. It is, rather, because not every injustice or transgression amounts to a criminal offense, and criminal prosecutors are tasked exclusively with investigating and prosecuting violations of U.S. criminal laws. And even where prosecutors believe a crime occurred based on all of the facts and information they have gathered, it is their duty only to bring criminal charges when the evidence that the government reasonably believes is admissible in court proves the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both Attorneys General Barr and Garland have stated that one of their most important priorities is to ensure the proper functioning and administration of federal law by government agencies. Indeed, the first goal of the Department’s current Strategic Plan is to uphold the rule of law:

We will continue our work to ensure that the public views the Department as objective, impartial, and insulated from political influence. …

The Justice Department[’s] … foundational norms … include the principled exercise of discretion; independence from improper influence; treating like cases alike; and an unwavering commitment to following the facts and the law. Reaffirming and, where necessary, strengthening the Justice Department policies