90-day sanction for prosecutor in Chandra Levy case recommended

Susan Levy holds a portrait of her daughter Chandra as she talks to the press before the start of the “Vigil of Hope” march for families of missing persons and homicide victims in Modesto, Calif. on April 26, 2003. REUTERS/Susan RaganRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comSummaryLaw firmsRelated documentsFormer assistant U.S. attorney Amanda Haines denied hiding evidenceThe company and law firm names shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this feature as we continue to test and develop in beta. We welcome feedback, which you can provide using the feedback tab on the right of the page.(Reuters) – A former federal prosecutor should be suspended for 90 days from practicing law for failing to disclose evidence in the case against the man accused in the 2001 murder of federal intern Chandra Levy, an attorney ethics panel said in a report on Thursday.The hearing committee report from the Washington, D.C., Board on Professional Responsibility said Amanda Haines intentionally did not turn over information that would counter the guilt of the man prosecuted for Levy’s death.The report recommended dismissal of charges against one of Haines’ colleagues at the time, Fernando Campoamor-Sánchez, now a lawyer at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comThe practical consequences for Haines could be minimal, as she has since retired from the law.”The Justice Department long ago cleared Ms. Haines of any prosecutorial misconduct because she did not actually commit any prosecutorial misconduct,” a lawyer for Haines, Justin Dillon of the boutique KaiserDillon, told Reuters. “That the Hearing Committee somehow managed to find otherwise is baffling, disappointing, and just plain wrong.”The investigation of Levy’s death gripped Washington amid revelations that then-California Democratic congressman Gary Condit was having an affair with Levy. The authorities cleared Condit.Defendant Ingmar Guandique was convicted at trial in 2010 but prosecutors subsequently dropped the case amid claims that the government concealed evidence. He was deported to El Salvador in 2017. No other person has been charged.Haines and Campoamor-Sánchez both denied hiding any evidence and also said they followed their obligations as prosecutors to share favorable evidence with defense lawyers.The hearing committee found Haines was responsible for not disclosing the entire contents of a letter to Guandique’s attorneys concerning the law enforcement history of a key witness for the government.The committee declined to embrace the D.C. bar disciplinary counsel’s office recommendation of a six-month license suspension.Campoamor-Sánchez’s lawyer, Mark Lynch of Covington & Burling, declined to comment. D.C. bar disciplinary counsel Hamilton Fox III did not immediately comment.Fox previously told Reuters that “the prevention of a violation is easy — just disclose. A significant sanction should deter future violations.”The committee report isn’t the final word. The D.C. Court of Appeals ultimately considers and decides attorney ethics cases.The cases are In the Matter of Amanda Haines, D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility, No. 2016-D261; and In the Matter of Fernando Campoamor-Sánchez, BPR, No. 2016-D262.Read more:Prosecutors in Chandra Levy case fight six-month sanction bid by ethics enforcersEx-federal prosecutor suspended from practice in MichiganVeteran AUSA reprimanded in rare sanction over trial conductRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.