(Bloomberg) — Lawyers for Steve Bannon urged a federal judge to sanction the Justice Department lawyers who prosecuted the former presidential adviser, arguing that the government’s invasive search of the private communications of one of Bannon’s lawyers amounted to misconduct.
(Bloomberg) — Lawyers for Steve Bannon urged a federal judge to sanction the Justice Department lawyers who prosecuted the former presidential adviser, arguing that the government’s invasive search of the private communications of one of Bannon’s lawyers amounted to misconduct.
Bannon’s lawyers asked the judge who presided over the former Trump adviser’s trial to revisit the matter, which surfaced last year. A jury in Washington convicted Bannon of contempt of Congress. Bannon has appealed the verdict. The issue raised in Wednesday’s court filing could help his attempt to overturn his conviction.
Robert Costello, who represented Bannon in the early stages of the investigation, accused the government of interfering in his attorney-client relationship with Bannon by obtaining his phone and email records using grand jury subpoenas.
When the matter was raised last year, US District Judge Carl J. Nichols acknowledged its importance and said it should be dealt with later.
In October, Nichols sentenced Bannon to spend four months in jail and pay a $6500 fine. But Nichols ordered that the sentence be stayed while Bannon appealed. In July, a jury found Bannon guilty on two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to testify and hand over documents to the committee investigating the storming of the US Capitol.
Defense counsel argued that Bannon relied on the advice of his attorney, Costello, in refusing to respond to the subpoena. Nichols refused to let Bannon use his lawyer as a defense at trial, citing a previous court decision known as Licavoli. But in his order staying the sentence, Nichols stated that Bannon’s appeal “raises a substantial question of law that is likely to result in a reversal or an order for a new trial.”
Defense attorneys argued that government counsel misled Costello into believing that they were interested in hearing why criminal charges shouldn’t be sought against Bannon. Meanwhile, prosecutors were subpoenaing Costello’s communications.
The case is US v. Bannon, 1:21-cr-00670, US District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P.