The Cousin on the Bid Evaluation Committee
Senior assistant prosecutor A. is assigned in March to supervise a criminal case concerning a 38 million som road-repair contract awarded by a district procurement commission. The main suspect is the director of the winning construction company. A. signed the office's standard conflict-of-interest declaration four months earlier, before the assignment. During the investigation A. learns that her first cousin sat on the same bid evaluation committee and signed the protocol recommending the company. The cousin telephones A. twice, asking whether the case can be 'resolved quietly.' A. tells her supervising prosecutor orally that 'there may be a family connection' but no written notice is filed and no replacement is assigned. A. later drafts the indictment. Defense counsel moves to exclude A. from the case and asks for the indictment to be returned. The supervising prosecutor says the oral disclosure was sufficient because the cousin is not a suspect.
1. Was A. required to recuse herself, and what defect exists in the oral disclosure?
Read the worked answer
A. had an actual conflict of interest. Her first cousin sat on the bid evaluation committee that recommended the suspect company, and the cousin later contacted her about the case. Conflict rules are not limited to suspects; they cover close relatives involved in the same transaction or decision. Oral disclosure to a supervisor does not satisfy the purpose of the rule, which is to create a record, allow independent review, and prevent the prosecutor from using case information. A. should have filed a written notification promptly, avoided discussing the case with the cousin, and asked to be removed. The supervisor should have assigned another prosecutor and documented the decision. The fact that the cousin is not a suspect is irrelevant: the cousin is a material witness and a participant in the procurement process. Remaining on the case created at least an appearance of bias and a risk that confidential information was disclosed. The indictment is not automatically void, but the defense has a strong procedural challenge.
2. What procedural and disciplinary consequences should follow if A. remained on the case and drafted the indictment?
Read the worked answer
If A. remained, the office should first remove her and have a new prosecutor review the file independently. The defense motion should be treated as a recusal challenge, not as a request to return the indictment automatically. The supervising prosecutor must examine whether A.'s conduct affected evidence, witness contacts, or charging decisions. Disciplinary liability depends on intent and harm: failure to file written notice, discussing the case with a relative, and ignoring the conflict can amount to official misconduct. Criminal liability would require separate proof, such as accepting a benefit or deliberately protecting the suspect. The office should document the timeline, preserve the cousin's call records, and consider whether A. disclosed confidential information. The remedy is normally removal and disciplinary review, plus disclosure to the defense so the court can assess the fairness of the proceedings.
3. How should the office handle the cousin's calls?
Read the worked answer
The cousin's calls should be reported immediately in writing, with date, time, and content. A. must not discuss the investigation, evidence, or possible outcomes, and should tell the cousin that contact is improper. The office should preserve the phone records and decide whether the cousin should be treated as a witness. If the calls contain pressure or an offer, the supervisor should consider a separate check for obstruction of justice or corruption. The prosecutor should not handle that check personally.