By Harry Jaffe The facts and ramifications of the Pershing Park case have the potential to bring down a sitting police chief and give D.C. residents the power to sue the government, but one question was settled yesterday in federal court: Who’s the boss?
Is it U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, who has been hearing the case for more than a year?
Or is it D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles, who is representing the District against hundreds of people who claim cops unfairly arrested them during 2002 street protests downtown at Pershing Park?
We know Nickles likes to be the boss. He likes to boss people around. He would like to be the boss in the Pershing Park courtroom. He knows better.
“You’re the boss,” he told Judge Sullivan.
“That’s exactly right,” Sullivan responded.
So much was at stake during yesterday’s two-hour hearing that it’s hard to sort out.
– Did cops destroy evidence at the time of the arrests? If so, will they get fingered for obstruction of justice?
– Did Charles Ramsey, then police chief, order his cops to jail protesters to “teach them a lesson?” Did he then lie about his orders under oath? Will a criminal case nail Ramsey, now police chief in Philadelphia?
— Should Sullivan call in Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to sort out any criminal matters?
— Did the settlement Nickles struck earlier in the week to pay 400 or so plaintiffs $8.5 million neutralize a second group that is demanding concrete reforms in the way D.C. handles future demonstrations?
Peter Nickles has something more personal at stake.
“I came into this job with my integrity and reputation on the line,” he told me after the hearing. “I do not intend to be involved in any cover-up. The one thing I am going to take away from this job is my integrity.”
Nickles wouldn’t be bringing integrity up if it weren’t somehow on the line. As lawyers like to say, Nickles has “skin in the game.” If cops ditched evidence back in 2002, Nickles doesn’t want to get hung on it in 2009. Which is one reason Nickles wants to settle the case and be done with it.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley is spoiling for a fight with Nickles. He represents the four who did not make a deal with the District. “We are delighted the judge has moved the trial date up and has indicated he expects Nickles to fulfill his promise to be the lead counsel,” he tells me.
My guess is that Judge Sullivan, a Washington native, will keep the civil case alive and force Nickles to stay in court. He will also take the criminal cases to the limit. Heads could roll.
The irony here is that Nickles used to be on the Turley side, riding his white horse and suing the District on behalf of abused citizens. Now he has do defend the District, its police brass, its shoddy way of keeping records.
Perhaps that’s why he’s worried about his integrity.
E-mail Harry Jaffe at [email protected]
