No, not criminal defense lawyers, but this statement opens the  press release by the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, Sally Quillian Yates:

The United States Attorney’s Office has one responsibility – to seek justice. To fulfill that responsibility, we are today disclosing information that we have recently discovered to the public as well as to defendants who may be affected by this information.

What juicy revelation could she be about to disclose?  That fingerprints are baloney?  That the lab techs lied and never actually tested the 457 kilos of cocaine?  That they’ve actually read Brady and realized that they’ve withheld information that tended to exculpate the defendant?

Sorry.  Not today.  Nope,

On November 19, 2010, former Senior District Judge Jack T. Camp (“Camp”) pleaded guilty to aiding a felon in possessing illegal drugs, possessing illegal drugs, and converting government property to private use.

Sally, this was already in the news.  We know this.  And it means what to us?

While Camp’s use of these drugs was not limited to weekends, he denies that he used any of these drugs contemporaneously with any court business, and we are currently unaware of any demonstrable evidence to the contrary. We have not discovered evidence of illegal drug use prior to May 2010.

So he was a drug-crazed fiend on his own time?  Thanks for that revelation, Sally, that his “lapses of judgment” never impaired his judgment when it came to being a judge.  Really, he’s a poster boy for judicial discretion.  Come on, there’s got to be something.

According to Witness 1, Camp told her that when African-American men appeared before him, he had a difficult time adjudicating their cases and specifically determining their sentences because he could not differentiate them from Individual A in light of his feelings about Individual A.

Whoa.  Are you saying that Camp sentenced black men to unduly harsh prison terms because of his sexual jealousy toward them?

When our office confronted Camp with the above allegations, he said that he did not make the statements attributed to him by either Witness 1 or Witness 2. He further denied ever taking any judicial action based on racial bias.

Or are you saying that he’s not a drug-crazed racist with penis issues because he denied it?

Our review of information provided by the Clerk of Court indicates that the only criminal trial over which Camp presided from May, 2010 forward resulted in a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury. Our only interest in any case that we have prosecuted before Camp is ensuring that justice is served. To that end, given these disturbing facts and allegations, this office will evaluate any criminal case adjudicated by Camp for impairment or bias that a defendant requests that we review.

Well, as long as your only interest is to ensure that justice is served.  After all, who isn’t for justice, right?

Furthermore, from May of 2010 forward, there is evidence that Camp’s judicial decision-making process may have been impacted by bias and/or impairment and it has been established that he was involved in criminal conduct during this period. Therefore, we will not object to a defendant’s request for a resentencing in any case in which the defendant was sentenced during this time.

That’s wonderfully magnanimous of you, given that Camp’s judgment was, how shall we say it, impaired.  Of course, there’s still one thing that remains a bit troubling, you see, because defendants don’t get to the point of sentencing without having gone through the process of prosecution, during which Judge Camp gets to do stuff, like make decisions and smack defendants and their lawyers around some, and detain people so that they are incapable of aiding in their defense, even assuming they are capable of obtaining the legal representation to which they would otherwise be entitled.

There are a whole panoply of rights and issues that arise during the course of prosecution, starting at the moment of arrest and continuing until the marshals walk the defendant out in shackles, and they are all inter-related, and often defy the government’s ability to see them quite as clearly as they might appear to a defendant or his lawyer. 

But hey, as long as your only interest is in seeking justice, we can certainly rely on your sound judgment and good intentions to ensure that every defendant who appeared before Judge Jack Camp got his fair shake.  After all, it’s all about justice, and if we can’t trust the government to seek justice, who can we trust?

And isn’t it fortunate that the miscreant who disrupted the government’s efforts to seek justice just happened to be some drug-abusing, sex-crazed old judge?  It’s not like anybody in the United States Attorneys office would ever do something to cause you to have to issue a press release about how you’re only responsibility is to seek justice.  Bad judge. Good government.  Glad we got that cleared up.

H/T Dissent at Pogo Was Right