As I reported Saturday, the prosecutor who charged former North Dakota state fund CEO Sandy Blunt with felony ‘theft of services’ is herself under investigation for allegedly withholding exculpatory evidence from Blunt’s defense attorney.
Cynthia Feland’s case has been heard by the ND Supreme Court’s Inquiry Board, who found enough evidence to convene a Disciplinary Board. From the ND Supreme Court website – “Formal proceedings are begun when there is probable cause to believe that misconduct has occurred that deserves a public reprimand, suspension, or disbarment.” [emphasis added]
This isn’t a routine, ‘happens all the time’ thing. Far from it. although to hear Feland tell it, this is no big deal – according to the Bismarck Tribute, Feland “said it is not uncommon for people to file complaints against prosecutors.”
Well, Cynthia, let’s look at the numbers, shall we?
Last year there were 349 cases that went thru the Disciplinary Board program.
192 were dismissed or the attorney was referred to an assistance program and 123 are still pending. That leaves 34 cases where there was some kind of final ruling. 17 went to a Panel Hearing. That’s where Feland is headed. And the odds aren’t good.
Only 2 cases were dismissed. Of the remaining cases, the Panel reprimanded the attorney in 6, the Supreme Court suspended the attorney in seven, and disbarred the offender in 2.
So Feland has a much better chance of being disciplined, or having her license to practice suspended, than she does of acquittal.
If she’s not reprimanded or suspended, it’s even odds if she’s acquitted or disbarred.
And she has the temerity, the unmitigated gall, to pooh pooh this? A sitting prosecutor, looking at a hearing where she has just over a one-in-ten chance of escaping unscathed? And a 60% chance of losing her license, at least temporarily?
I find it hard to believe that the Inquiry Panel would find probable cause where none exists, particularly in a case where a sitting prosecutor is accused of withholding evidence from a defendant.
As a prosecutor, I’m sure Feland would love those kind of odds.
Interestingly, none of the other media outlets in the state picked this up; neither did the local AP writer (who happens to be a facebook friend of Feland’s).
I’m vastly unimpressed with the media in NoDak; here’s a case of potential wide-ranging import, one where a prosector is charged not only with withholding evidence, but also suborning perjury, yet it’s not worthy of coverage.
Nope, not when the state fair parade’s in town, by golly!
Jul
26
