There are a lot of ways that Sheri Mecklenburg’s twin mic drop last week (her motion to intervene and the liberation of her resignation letter) may change the outcome of this week’s hearing in the Broadview 6 case. I’m working on a post about why US Attorney Andrew Boutros was panicked enough about the prosecutorial decision-making so as to waive privilege in the case; I laid out that he did here.
But I want to point to a more nuanced detail.
In her resignation letter, Mecklenburg documented a range of specifics regarding the May 21 hearing at which this case fell apart.
This decision to keep me and my attorneys in the dark was consistent with your handling of this matter from the outset. No one consulted me about any transcript redactions. I had nothing to hide and in fact demonstrated quite the opposite in memorializing brief and incidental interactions with two grand jurors. You declined to notify me about the May 21, 2026 Court hearing, which I had the indignity of learning about after-the-fact from the media. I would have expected the leadership of the Office to ensure that a career prosecutor whose conduct and reputation were about to be publicly condemned received notice and an opportunity to be heard. Had I been afforded that basic fairness at the outset, I believe matters would not have reached this point.
Since I was not present, I was a convenient target to be scapegoated and publicly vilified. You recklessly agreed in court that I had committed misconduct without even asking for my account, fully reviewing the record or briefing the law. That evening, you sent an office-wide email laying responsibility at my feet for a felony prosecution that you personally directed over my objection that the case was better suited to misdemeanor charges. You then publicly announced an investigation of my conduct spanning twenty years. These inexplicable actions severely damaged a reputation I worked hard to build over decades and have damaged my prospects for future employment and income.
Throughout all of this, I remained silent. But now the defense has leveled additional false and inflammatory accusations against me that the Office has not rebutted and apparently has no intention of rebutting. At the same time, you have threatened to terminate me if I attempt to rebut the false allegations and bring additional matters to the Court’s attention. You remind me that I am still a DOJ employee when you want to silence me, but you have not treated me as a DOJ employee throughout this matter, including when, in May, you placed me on leave and cut off my devices and credentials without any notice. Your adverse actions from the beginning have forced me to retain personal counsel to defend conduct undertaken as part of my employment, yet you have refused to indemnify me for the substantial resulting expense. Despite the adverse impact on my finances, you cannot buy my silence by dangling continued leave.
Those details include:
- Boutros gave Mecklenburg no notice of the hearing; she learned about it when a journalist contacted her about it.
- Mecklenburg was not present; the three other AUSAs, including Matthew Skiba and William Hogan, were.
- Immediately after the hearing, Boutros sent out an office-wide email “laying responsibility at my feet.” The public reporting on that email focuses, instead, on the way Boutros hailed the three AUSAs present that day as “courageous.”
- Sometime in May (it’s not clear whether before or after that email), Boutros put her (and only her) on leave and shut down Mecklenburg’s DOJ credentials.
But the most important detail is that Boutros did not reach out to Mecklenburg at all.
In that May 21 hearing, Boutros claimed he had “spoken extensively to the prosecutors.”
I know Your Honor has indicated that you may hold a hearing or will hold a hearing. We obviously defer to Your Honor. But I did want you to know from me, that from my assessment, having spoken extensively to the prosecutors, I do not believe that whatever errors were done specifically as it relates to the redactions, were done intentionally or with a desire to mislead the Court.
And if Your Honor wants to hear more about that, I’m happy to come back and explain why that is the case.
True. He said that in context of the grand jury redactions, which were done long after Mecklenburg left the prosecution.
But it is relevant to something exonerees argued back in July, when arguing that DOJ’s agreement to pay attorneys fees mooted any discovery: Boutros rested his claim there was no need to investigate further on having discussed the case with prosecutors.
The Defendants’ concern that the payment of the attorneys’ fees by the U.S. Attorney’s Office will keep the truth and scope of the misconduct that occurred in this case hidden forever stems in large part from the public and private statements by U.S. Attorney Boutros regarding this case. A review of U.S. Attorney Boutros’ statements makes clear that he does not believe any misconduct actually occurred and thus no meaningful investigation or accountability can be counted on from his Office.5
U.S. Attorney Boutros previously informed the Court that he has already investigated this matter to his satisfaction and has sincerely determined that no deliberate misconduct occurred:
It is my very sincere belief, Your Honor, that no prosecutor acted intentionally in misleading you, and that there was no desire to mislead the Court and no deliberate misconduct on the part of the prosecutors.
5-21-26 Tr. at 50:17-21 (emphasis added). While this Court might hold out hope that U.S. Attorney Boutros would change his “sincere belief” after he investigates and realizes the true extent of the deception and fraud his prosecutors committed in this matter, he has foreclosed that route by stating he has, from his perspective, already fully investigated the matter and stands by his misguided belief that no misconduct occurred.
But I did want you to know from me, that from my assessment, having spoken extensively to the prosecutors, I do not believe that whatever errors were done specifically as it relates to the redactions, were done intentionally or with a desire to mislead the Court.6
5-21-26 Tr. at 50:23-51:2 (emphasis added).
Perhaps the most troubling statement by U.S. Attorney Boutros regarding is the message he sent to all employees in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, literally within just a few hours of leaving the courtroom where this Court made clear its severe displeasure with the misconduct that occurred in this matter, and Mr. Boutros was forced to dismisss this case with prejudice. Rather than being chastened by all that had been exposed to date, immediately thereafter the U.S. Attorney wrote an office-wide email to publicly commend the conduct and actions of the AUSAs at the center of this self-created storm:
[T]oday was an important day for the Office. We saw three courageous prosecutors …fight long and hard for a case they inherited when a colleague departed the Office. These prosecutors fought for the rule of law . . . Our Prosecutors were strong and courageous.
May 21, 2026 email from U.S. Attorney Boutros to all employees at U.S. Attorney’s Office (emphasis added). Thus, the public record created by U.S. Attorney Boutros regarding this case demonstrates he not only does not see or comprehend the grave misconduct committed by his prosecutors over the past nine months in directly deceiving this Court (among other things), but that he is actually sending the message to all the young (and old) prosecutors in the Office that the behavior of these prosecutors should be praised and thought of as “strong,” “courageous,” and having “fought for the rule of law,” when exactly the opposite should have been the message delivered from the lead law enforcement official in our district. The government’s general agreement to write a check should not cause the Court to divest its authority to bring to light the web of misconduct that has now only begun to be exposed.
5 The agreement to stipulate that attorneys’ fees are warranted while continuing to publicly deny any wrongdoing further illustrates the need for this Court to initiate further investigation into this matter. Given the parties involved include political appointees at the highest levels of both the local and national Department of Justice offices, it is clear there will be no proper or objective investigation done unless the Court directs it. This Court, therefore, is the community’s only hope for pursuing transparency and accountability
6 Notably, U.S. Attorney Boutros offered to share with the Court (and presumably the public) why he holds such a sincere belief, “And if Your Honor wants to hear more about that, I’m happy to come back and explain why that is the case.” 5-21-26 Tr. at 51:3-4. We respectfully submit the Court should take him up on that offer. And to the extent the Government was sincere about this offer, perhaps they will join in this request for the Court to hold hearings on this matter. [all emphasis original]
Effectively, Boutros was himself vouching at that hearing in May, assuring Judge Perry — in a hearing where she made clear DOJ’s presumption of regularity had disappeared — that, based on his conversations with prosecutors, she didn’t need to investigate prosecutors’ conduct any further.
But, we now know, he only spoke to three of the prosecutors — the three he called “strong and courageous” even as he lambasted Mecklenburg.
“The bar is set in the crust of the earth.”
“And some people won’t stop digging.” – Jaysea Lynn