UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DC CIRCUIT
IN REHENRY CISNEROS
* * *
No. 95-0001a
July 03 2001
* * *
Before Sentelle, Presiding, and Fay and Cudahy,* Senior Circuit Judges.O R D E R
Pursuant to the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994, 28 U.S.C. ss 591-599 (1994), the court, on its own motion, concludes that termination of the Office of Indepen- dent Counsel in the above-captioned matter is not currently appropriate under the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 596(b)(2).
Per Curiam
For the Court:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
By:
Marilyn R. Sargent
Chief Deputy Clerk
__________
* Senior Judge Cudahy has filed a separate concurrence.
Cudahy, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring:
The question whether it would be appropriate for this judicial panel to terminate the Office of the Independent Counsel in this matter is for me difficult and perplexing. And this is a responsibility that should be of the most crucial importance.
Independent Counsel Barrett was appointed in May 1995 to investigate alleged false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by then-Secretary of Housing and Urban Devel- opment Henry Cisneros. The original grant of jurisdiction to Mr. Barrett also covered investigation of the possible related offense of obstruction of justice and of other possible related crimes by any persons or entities arising out of the probe of Mr. Cisneros. There were two subsequent grants of jurisdic- tion purporting specifically to cover alleged related income tax matters and essentially reasserting the scope of the investigation originally authorized. The last of these jurisdic- tional grants is dated March 26, 1997.
On September 9, 1999, Mr. Cisneros pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and paid a fine of $10,000.00. For all practical purposes, this seems to have completed the proceedings with respect to Mr. Cisneros. Presumably, any involvement of Mr. Cisneros himself in related offenses such as obstruction of justice would have been known at the time of the plea bargain. However, since then, Mr. Barrett has continued an apparently wide-ranging probe of government officials who might, in his view, have sought to shield Mr. Cisneros. Some press accounts suggest that these continuing inquiries have met with diminishing returns but describe Mr. Barrett as maintaining an active grand jury process, which in his view is making unspecified but "substantial" progress.
It has been six years since Mr. Barrett began his investiga- tion. It has been four years since he received his last grant of jurisdiction, which only marginally expanded the scope of his efforts. In a few months, it will be two years since the investigation reached a culmination as to its principal target, Mr. Cisneros, with whom all accounts have now been settled. Mr. Barrett's office has been supported since its inception with almost $15,000,000 of the taxpayers' money, and he is now drawing down more than $1,000,000 every six months.
Whether a cost-benefit analysis at this point would support Mr. Barrett's efforts is a question to which I have no answer. In any event, such an inquiry by this panel is apparently precluded under the now-expired independent counsel stat- ute.
There seems to be no doubt that Mr. Barrett's prosecutors are actively engaged befo
CASE STATISTICSCASES:
STATUTES: 28 U.S.C. Sec. 596;
© Silicon Gulch 1999-2002
No Claim to Original Govt. Works