mycatharsis.com

According to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, (hat tip TPM) yes …

The FBI agents simply set up appointments for federal prosecutors, said Margaret Philbin, spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan.

“It is commonplace for the prosecuting attorneys and the investigating agency, in this case the FBI, to participate in the post-verdict discussion with the jurors,” Philbin said in a statement. “Often that occurs before the jury leaves the courthouse. In this case the jury was excused before the attorneys and agents had an opportunity to speak with the members.”

The FBI agents simply set up appointments for federal prosecutors, said Margaret Philbin, spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan.

“It is commonplace for the prosecuting attorneys and the investigating agency, in this case the FBI, to participate in the post-verdict discussion with the jurors,” Philbin said in a statement. “Often that occurs before the jury leaves the courthouse. In this case the jury was excused before the attorneys and agents had an opportunity to speak with the members.”

Is it really commonplace?  If so, it’s almost even more disturbing than if it’s not.  Defense attorneys in the article say it’s unprecedented, while the U.S. attorney’s office says it’s standard procedure.

Either way, I think it’s fair to say it’s profoundly disturbing.  It seems like the kind that falls under the umbrella of technically legal, yet getting your point across.  Doesn’t it just sound like it’d be a highly effective form of legal juror intimidation?  I have to give the Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney’s office the benefit of the doubt, and say they’re no morons in that office.  While they claim it’s simply part of their process in determining on what charges to retry a defendant,  these attorney’s know full well the power of a phone call that starts off , “This is the FBI, we’d like to set up a time to talk about your recent verdict in the Cyril Wecht case … “.  Even with my generally ‘up yours’ attitude towards authorities encroachment on constitutional rights, I would be quite disturbed about getting a phone call like that.

Is it too strong to call this juror intimidation? Not for one of the people receiving the call.  I think his reaction sounds entirely natural …

“I thought it was kind of intimidating,” the jury foreman said about the FBI phone call.

Said another juror, “I found it kind of unusual.”

Both the FBI and the U.S. attorneys have to be fully aware of the intimidating nature of such a call.  If this was a defense attorney contacting jurors about their votes to convict, I think the bar for questioning that lawyer’s propriety would be set much lower than it is when these U.S. attorneys and the FBI do it.  But this kind of contact seems profoundly disturbing in a free society.  Especially when you consider the controversy surrounding the possible political nature of these charges, and the general lack of interest from this Justice Department in prosecuting much more severe corporate crime.