DOJ-OGR-00004164.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 29 of 34 conviction.’” United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233, 238 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997)). Here, it would “shock the conscience” to permit a prosecutor to make false statements to a federal judge to circumvent another judge’s duly-entered order, all in violation of the defendant’s due process, privacy, and Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The only way to prevent Maxwell from suffering unconstitutional prejudice because of the government’s misconduct is to suppress the evidence the government unlawfully obtained and to dismiss Counts 5 and 6. AUSA J breached two separate but equally consequential duties: The duty of a public prosecutor and the duty of candor. “TT |he responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict.” Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787, 803 (1987). Prosecutors are held to a higher standard, and for good reason. “[The prosecutor] is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). Moreover, “[i]n light of the prosecutor’s public responsibilities, broad authority and discretion, the prosecutor has a heightened duty of candor to the courts and in fulfilling other professional obligations.” ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Prosecution Function, Standard 3- 1.4 (4th ed. 2017). “While all lawyers owe a duty of honesty and candor to the Court, “this obligation lies most heavily upon [public prosecutors] who are not merely partisan advocates, but public officials charged with administering justice honestly, fairly and impartially.” Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601, 612 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 24 DOJ-OGR-00004164