U.S.A. v. Hasarafally, No. 06-4239 (2d Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
06-4239-cr U.S.A. v. Hasarafally 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT _______________ August Term, 2007 (Motion Submitted: February 13, 2008 Decided: June 12, 2008) Docket No. 06-4239-cr _______________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Ameer Hasarafally, Defendant-Appellant. _______________ Before: CARDAMONE, SOTOMAYOR, and RAGGI, Circuit Judges. _______________ Defendant Ameer Hasarafally moves to recuse the United States Department of Justice from representing the government on his appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York because the criminal judgment under review was rendered by then-District Court Judge Michael B. Mukasey, prior to his appointment as Attorney General of the United States. Denied. _______________ B. Alan Seidler, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant. Sarah Y. Lai, Assistant United States Attorney, (Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, New York), for Appellee. _______________ 1 2 CARDAMONE, Circuit Judge: Defendant Ameer Hasarafally, who has appealed from a 3 judgment of conviction finding him guilty of one count of a 4 cocaine conspiracy, moves to recuse the United States Department 5 of Justice as attorney for the United States in this case. 6 reason is that defendant's trial was held in the United States 7 District Court for the Southern District of New York before Judge 8 Michael B. Mukasey, who after retirement from the bench and a 9 time in private practice, has become the Attorney General of the The 10 United States, the appellee on defendant's appeal. 11 because the circumstances of this case are present in about 40 12 appeals pending in this Court. 13 We write Defendant maintains that Judge Mukasey's appointment as 14 Attorney General creates a conflict of interest. 15 sensitive to such a claim because it quickly raises an issue of a 16 lack of prosecutorial impartiality. 17 claim, which is easy to assert and slow to dissipate, casts a 18 pall over the case. 19 interest claim is completely without foundation and is entitled 20 to no credence whatever. 21 22 Courts are If given credence, the Fortunately, in this case, the conflict of BACKGROUND The current Attorney General of the United States served as 23 a federal district court judge for nearly 20 years prior to his 24 appointment as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. 25 During his time in the United States District Court for the 26 Southern District of New York, Judge Mukasey presided over 2 1 hundreds of cases, a number of which are now being appealed to 2 this Court. 3 One of those appeals is, as noted, this one. In 2006 4 Hasarafally was tried by a jury and convicted of possession with 5 intent to distribute cocaine. 6 months in prison, five years of supervised release, and a $100 7 special assessment. 8 sentence and he now moves to recuse the entire Department of 9 Justice from representing the government in this appeal due to an Judge Mukasey sentenced him to 96 Hasarafally has appealed his conviction and 10 asserted conflict of interest caused by Judge Mukasey's new 11 position as Attorney General. 12 The government responds to defendant's motion by stressing 13 that while the Attorney General has supervisory power over all 14 litigation to which the United States is a party, see 28 U.S.C. 15 §§ 503, 509, it is in fact the United States Attorney for the 16 Southern District of New York who, by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 547, 17 represents the United States in this case. 18 government advises us that Attorney General Mukasey has recused 19 himself from all matters in which he participated as a United 20 States District Judge. 21 Acting Attorney General for such matters, and pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 508, a Deputy or Associate Attorney General will 23 automatically take over this role should one of these offices be 24 filled by someone who has been nominated by the President and 25 confirmed by the Senate during Attorney General Mukasey's tenure. 26 Moreover, the The Solicitor General is currently the We turn to the merits of the motion before us. 3 1 DISCUSSION 2 I 3 Attorneys General Formerly Judges This is not the first time the country has had an Attorney 4 General with prior experience as a judge. William Bradford, the 5 country's second Attorney General, was a Justice of the 6 Pennsylvania Supreme Court at the time of his appointment in 7 1794. 8 States, 1789-1979 4 (1980). 9 after Bradford, up to and including Attorney General Mukasey's See U.S. Dep't of Justice, Attorneys General of the United At least 18 other Attorneys General 10 immediate predecessor, have served as judges prior to their 11 appointments. 12 Attorneys General Levi Lincoln, William Wirt, John MacPherson 13 Berrien, Felix Grundy, John Young Mason, Caleb Cushing, Jeremiah 14 Sullivan Black, Edward Bates, Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, George 15 Henry Williams, Edwards Pierrepont, Alphonso Taft, Charles 16 Devens, Judson Harmon, Joseph McKenna, Alexander Mitchell Palmer, 17 Francis Biddle, and Griffin Boyette Bell); Who's Who in American 18 Law, 2007-2008 426 (Janine Fechter et al. eds., 15th ed. 2007) 19 (noting Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's experience as a 20 judge). 21 prosecutors, at both the federal and state levels, who have come 22 to their positions with valuable judicial experience. 23 State v. Tate, 925 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); 24 Commonwealth v. Ford, 650 A.2d 433, 443 (Pa. 1994); Ross v. 25 State, 57 P. 924, 925 (Wyo. 1899). See id. at 8-144 (noting the judgeships held by There are also, no doubt, numerous examples of other 4 See, e.g., 1 We find very little precedent, however, on the potential 2 conflict of interest created by the transition from judge to 3 prosecutor in any given case. 4 in certain circumstances, as when a trial judge receives 5 confidential communications by the defendant during ex parte 6 proceedings, and then goes on to act as prosecutor in the same 7 case, see Tate, 925 S.W.2d at 553-54, or when a trial judge who 8 has been personally criticized or shown disrespect by a party 9 goes on to prosecute this party for criminal contempt, cf. Fed. 10 R. Crim. P. 42(a)(3) (prohibiting such a judge from presiding at 11 the contempt trial absent defendant's consent). 12 circumstances, the alleged conflict may be absent, particularly 13 when the prosecutor has had only minimal involvement as trial 14 judge in the defendant's case. 15 (holding no conflict to exist where the prosecutor, in his prior 16 role as judge, had merely denied defendant bail). 17 noted that Attorney General Mukasey's formal appearance in the 18 caption of an appeal from a decision he issued as trial judge was 19 without legal significance. 20 F.3d 69, 71 n.3 (2d Cir. 2008). 21 in passing and not in response to any assertion of a conflict of 22 interest. 23 24 II Such a conflict surely may exist In other See Ross, 57 P. at 925-26 We recently Ogunwomoju v. United States, 512 But that comment was made only Attorney General Mukasey's Recusal In order to fully address Hasarafally's motion for recusal, 25 we proceed with our own analysis of the facts and precedent, 26 mindful, as we tread into uncharted territory, of a former 5 1 colleague's memorable warning (when he was a district court 2 judge) that "[w]hen dealing with ethical principles, it is 3 apparent that we cannot paint with broad strokes," as the "lines 4 are fine and must be so marked." 5 Co., 136 F. Supp. 345, 367 (S.D.N.Y. 1955) (Kaufman, J.); see 6 also Bd. of Educ. v. Nyquist, 590 F.2d 1241, 1246 (2d Cir. 1979). 7 With respect to Attorney General Mukasey's potential conflict of 8 interest, we may dispose of that quickly. 9 would exist were the Attorney General serving as prosecutor in United States v. Standard Oil Whatever conflict 10 this case, it has been avoided by virtue of his recusal. 11 accept the government's representation that Attorney General 12 Mukasey will play no role in Hasarafally's appeal, and that, in 13 the unlikely event any supervision at the level of the Attorney 14 General's office is necessary, it will be carried out by the 15 Solicitor General or by a Deputy or Associate Attorney General. 16 We In these circumstances, recusal of the entire Department of 17 Justice is both unnecessary and inappropriate. 18 attorney's conflict of interest may require disqualification of 19 that attorney's law firm in certain cases, see, e.g., Fund of 20 Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 567 F.2d 225, 229 n.10 21 (2d Cir. 1977); cf. Hempstead Video, Inc. v. Inc. Vill. of Valley 22 Stream, 409 F.3d 127, 137-39 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that this is 23 not a categorical rule), such an approach is not favored when it 24 comes to the office of a United States Attorney, see United 25 States v. Badalamenti, 794 F.2d 821, 828 (2d Cir. 1986); Grand 26 Jury Subpoena of Ford v. United States, 756 F.2d 249, 254 (2d 6 While a private 1 Cir. 1985), or, a fortiori, to the Department of Justice as a 2 whole. 3 4 A. Screening Procedure Alleviates Burden on the Government Instead, we acknowledge the propriety of screening 5 procedures that insulate a government attorney from matters in 6 which he or she would face a conflict of interest. 7 F.2d at 254. 8 the public of office-wide disqualification is much higher than 9 the burden on a private party, who can easily choose from a range Ford, 756 This is because the burden on the government and 10 of law firms. See id. Moreover, the Justice Department's 11 institutional characteristics lessen the need for wide-ranging 12 office-wide disqualification, see United States v. Caggiano, 660 13 F.2d 184, 190-91 (6th Cir. 1981) (citing ABA Comm. on Prof'l 14 Ethics, Formal Op. 342, 62 A.B.A. J. 517, 521 (1976)), while 15 simultaneously causing such disqualification to implicate 16 concerns over the administration of justice, see id., and 17 separation of powers, see United States v. Bolden, 353 F.3d 870, 18 879 (10th Cir. 2003). 19 793, 799-800 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. Vlahos, 33 F.3d 20 758, 763 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 21 1448, 1453 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1993). 22 weigh against the disqualification of individual United States 23 Attorneys' offices, they weigh even more heavily against 24 disqualification of the entire Department of Justice. See also United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 7 Just as these considerations 1 B. Limits of Our Holding 2 To resolve this motion, we need not now decide whether 3 circumstances might ever arise warranting disqualification of the 4 entire Justice Department or an office within that Department. 5 We can readily conclude that in the present case, Attorney 6 General Mukasey's potential conflict of interest is too 7 attenuated to warrant such extraordinary action. 8 with respect to the Attorney General himself, the alleged 9 conflict is more apparent than real, and extremely narrow even in Indeed, even 10 that respect. There is no allegation that he received, as trial 11 judge, any privileged communications that should be kept out of 12 the prosecution's hands on appeal. 13 Nor is there any allegation that the Attorney General harbors 14 some personal interest in this case that would damage 15 Hasarafally's right to a neutral prosecutor. Cf. Marshall v. 16 Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 249-50 (1980). All we are faced 17 with is the Attorney General's prior role as trial judge -- a 18 role in which he was held to a higher standard of neutrality than 19 the one to which he must now conform as a prosecutor. 20 While this role might create an appearance of impropriety 21 sufficient to disqualify the Attorney General himself from 22 participating in this appeal regardless of any personal interest 23 (and we do not say that it does), we see no reason to exclude the 24 rest of his Department from appearing. 8 Cf. Ford, 756 F.2d at 254. See id. 1 2 CONCLUSION Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we deny 3 Hasarafally's motion to recuse the Department of Justice from 4 representing the United States on his appeal. 9
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
