A local district attorney has come under close scrutiny following allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and criminal acts stemming from a 2008 case in Knox County.
District Attorney Geoffrey Rushlau is being investigated by the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, which handles complaints made against Maine attorneys. DA Rushlau may also be facing criminal charges through the Maine Attorney General’s Office and/or the US Attorney’s Office.
Mr. Rushlau serves as the prosecutor for Knox, Waldo, Lincoln, and Sagadahoc Counties. In 2008 Mr. Rushlau prosecuted a high profile assault case in Rockland in which the defendant was facing up to 30 years in prison.
Both of the two alleged victims of that stabbing were facing serious criminal prosecutions of their own. One had been charged with three counts of Gross Sexual Assault and pled to lesser felony sexual offenses. The other alleged victim was facing indictment for a felony theft committed during his time as an employee at Bank of America in Belfast.
All of these cases were prosecuted by Mr. Rushlau’s office, yet during his prosecution of the Rockland assault case, the district attorney failed to disclose this information to the defendant and his defense lawyer. Failure to disclose such information is a violation of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure and Due Process rights under the US Constitution.
Despite a potential sentence of 30 years, the defendant was sentenced to 9 months in county jail and served a significantly shorter sentence as a result of good behavior. His case is currently under appeal in the Maine Supreme Court.
The withholding of exculpatory evidence – information that may negate or mitigate the guilt of a criminal defendant – is one of the most serious forms of misconduct available to a district attorney.
It’s what resulted in the disbarment and criminal charges against Mike Nifong, former North Carolina DA who prosecuted the nationally known Duke University lacrosse case. During investigation the North Carolina State Bar found that Nifong had concealed important DNA evidence that could have exonerated the Duke students from allegations of rape.
Back here in Maine, Mr. Rushlau is facing more than just charges of withheld exculpatory evidence.
The over 800-page complaint details instances of unlawful bias, violations to a defendant’s constitutional rights, withheld exculpatory material, false statements, coercion, and felonious perjury on the part of Mr. Rushlau, among other points. In 2010 Mr. Rushlau wrote at least two personal letters directly to the criminal defendant and engaged in a number of phone calls with the defendant, which the defendant recorded and provided to the Board.
Recorded statements of local law enforcement officers have also revealed several discrepancies in Mr. Rushlau’s prosecutions, even what may be knowing fabrications of fact and evidence tampering.
Last year the Board made a finding that the allegations, if true, would in fact substantiate serious violations to the Maine Bar Rules and Rules of Professional Conduct. After over a year of intense investigation, the complaint has been forwarded to the Grievance Commission for further consideration following a finding of probable cause by the Board.
Additionally the complaint was forwarded to the Maine Attorney General’s Office, where the story becomes even more complex.
In a written statement issued August 5th, 2011, Attorney General William Schneider outlines a conflict of interest and insists that his office cannot prosecute Mr. Rushlau because his office in fact represents Mr. Rushlau.
In complaint proceedings such as this, it is common for attorneys like Mr. Rushlau to seek counsel of their own. Because Mr. Rushlau is employed by the State, the Attorney General’s Office may take responsibility for representation. This representation, however, was further complicated by another letter from the AG’s Office only days later.
On August 15th, only 10 days after AG Schneider’s statement, Deputy Attorney General William Stokes offered a written statement of his own. In this statement Mr. Stokes indicated that he had fully reviewed the complaint against Mr. Rushlau and determined that no criminal conduct occurred.
The Attorney General’s Office has thus far refused to comment on this apparent discrepancy between two of Maine’s most influential attorneys. At the very least there seems to have been a serious miscommunication between AG Schneider and Deputy AG Stokes. It is curious that Mr. Stokes would assert a position on the allegations against Mr. Rushlau if Mr. Stokes was aware that his office was already representing Mr. Rushlau. Notably, former Deputy AG Paul Stern represented Mr. Rushlau early on in this complaint. Mr. Stokes now holds that position.
Among the nearly 1,000 pages associated with this complaint is the sworn testimony of a Westbrook defense lawyer, Robert Smith. In March of this year Mr. Smith took the stand in Knox County Superior Court and testified under oath to facts that directly contradicted written statements Mr. Rushlau filed with both the Superior Court and the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar.
In particular, Mr. Rushlau had denied serious allegations of unlawful coercion involving the 2008 Rockland assault case that his office prosecuted. During appeal it was alleged that Mr. Rushlau had falsified evidence and illegally coerced the defendant’s plea with threats of child pornography charges. There was in fact an investigation into Possession of Sexually Explicit Materials, but the images in question all depicted adults and the defendant was never charged in relation to those images. Nonetheless, Mr. Rushlau apparently continued to assert that the images included children and used this as one form of leverage to coerce the defendant’s guilty plea to separate charges.
Yet in early 2011 Mr. Rushlau denied knowledge of this investigation and indicated he never made any statements in connection with the investigation or allegations of child porn. In a statement to the Superior Court and Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, Mr. Rushlau wrote, ‘I have no memory of ever speaking to attorney Smith about child pornography, and I can think of no reason why I would.’
During his March 10th testimony this year in Superior Court, Mr. Smith stated that he did in fact discuss child porn allegation at length with Mr. Rushlau and that it was a significant aspect of two plea deals that Mr. Smith negotiated in 2008. Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hjelm found Mr. Smith’s testimony to be credible, placing Mr. Rushlau’s statements and credibility in a precarious position that has yet to be resolved. The Board has since contacted Mr. Smith to inquire about his availability as a witness in apprehension of a future hearing against Mr. Rushlau.
Making a false statement to the court is a crime and can be prosecuted as a felony in the State of Maine. If Mr. Rushlau is criminally charged, it’s likely he will face greater consequences than an average defense attorney due to the extra responsibilities and ethical expectations of a lead prosecutor.
This is not the first time serious allegations of misconduct have been alleged against DA Rushlau. Mr. Rushlau has run into trouble as recently as this January during the high profile Waldo County trial against Randall Hofland, the 57-year-old man who held hostage a local elementary school. During that trial Hofland alleged Mr. Rushlau was withholding important evidence and preventing Hofland from accessing exculpatory material. As a result, the trial had to be delayed while Hofland collected the documents that had been kept from him. This wasted a great deal of precious court time and imposed significant additional costs on Maine taxpayers.
The district attorney is an elected official. During the very close 2006 race between DA Rushlau and DA candidate Joe Baiungo, Baiungo accused Rushlau of being soft on sex crimes and referred to twenty different local sex offense cases in which the defendants were essentially let off after committing ‘the worst crimes you can commit against someone,’ according to Baiungo. Baiungo asserted that these sex offenders were now free as a result of Rushlau’s ‘mishandling’ of the cases. At that time Rushlau responded by stating that even if he believed a defendant was guilty of a crime, he would not prosecute the case if he didn’t think he could win because it would be a waste of public resources.
The following year, in 2007, Kathleen Morgan, the executive director of New Hope for Women, publicly criticized Rushlau and his office for mishandling numerous domestic violence cases. In one case a man reportedly strangled his female companion in an attempt to kill her. Even though the man had a prior criminal assault record, Rushlau’s office negotiated a plea agreement in which the man only faced a misdemeanor conviction. New Hope for Women reported several other cases of serious battery against a number of women in which the perpetrators faced little to no consequences due to the district attorney’s oversight.
Likewise in 2007 a gay man incarcerated at Knox County Jail became the victim of a clear hate crime after another man attacked and hospitalized him. The attacker, who had an extensive history of assault, told police that he was ‘not a fag’ and that the gay man had flirted with him, prompting the assault. Mr. Rushlau’s office declined to prosecute the man, despite a hate crime report filed by the Knox County Sheriff’s Office.
It is difficult to discern exactly what is afoot in DA Rushlau’s district and who else is to blame for the numerous failures and apparent misconduct, even criminal acts, carried out behind the scenes. Because of the ambiguous nature of statements coming from the Maine Attorney General’s Office and seeming unwillingness to present straightforward information about this investigation, federal authorities have been contacted and may become involved in these bizarre events.
Geoff Rushlau’s future as district attorney and even his own personal freedom is unclear at this point. The pending investigation against Mr. Rushlau, both professional and criminal, is sure to require more time due to the inherent complexities of this case. The professional investigation itself has been pending for well over a year and it is unknown how long Mr. Rushlau has been engaged in the alleged misconduct and criminal acts.
Mr. Rushlau has been the District 6 prosecutorial attorney for 18 years now and has been a prosecutor for even longer. It’s unknown as to how many others may have been victimized by Mr. Rushlau’s abuse of power, but potential victims are encouraged to come forward and contact the Board and/or the Maine Attorney General’s Office.
If you believe you have been a victim of or witnessed prosecutorial misconduct or criminal acts by DA Rushlau or his office, you may contact the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar and/or the Maine Attorney General’s Office. Information about them and how to file a complaint is provided below.
A just judicial system relies on public transparency and the ability of its citizens to redress their grievances, especially where public officials are concerned. Ordinary citizens are the only defense against the abuses of public office and corrupt law enforcement.
Board of Overseers of the Bar
97 Winthrop Street
P. O. Box 527
Augusta, Maine 04332-0527
Telephone: 207-623-1121
E-mail: board@mebaroverseers.org
http://www.mebaroverseers.org
Office of the Maine Attorney General
6 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
Telephone: 207-626-8800
E-mail form: http://www.maine.gov/ag/contact.html
http://www.maine.gov/ag/
