In spring 2009, after prosecutors repeatedly failed to hand over evidence favorable to his fight against corruption charges, a federal judge tossed out the jury conviction of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens. Now, more than a year later, Stevens' defense team is calling for judicial reform, urging a change to the rules of criminal procedure that will safeguard innocent people from wrongful prosecution.

Defense attorneys Brendan Sullivan and Robert Cary have written a letter to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee (PDF) in support of requiring "the disclosure of all exculpatory evidence well in advance of trial."

The letter reinforces changes proposed by the judge who heard the Stevens case and the American College of Trial Lawyers. Sullivan and Cary are pushing for full disclosure of favorable evidence, and not just evidence that might be "material" or directly relevant to a case at hand. They argue that in the heat of battle, prosecutors may be prone to use the materiality definition as a loophole by which to intentionally withhold evidence they would otherwise be required to give to the defense. Requiring the disclosure of all evidence helpful to the defense, regardless of materiality, would eliminate such loopholes, they argue, and make it "impossible to rationalize non-disclosure."

Stevens' case was overturned because the judge, frustrated and angry with a series of prosecutorial bumbles, ordered the disclosure of all exculpatory evidence that "set off a chain of events" that revealed evidence the defense should have had to begin with, noted Sullivan and Cary.

Less than two weeks after a jury convicted Stevens, he lost his bid for re-election. The Senate's longest-serving Republican member was unseated by a Democrat and congressional newcomer, Mark Begich. An inquiry into whether the prosecutors who went after Stevens committed criminal misconduct continues to this day.

While they appreciate the reform already taking place under U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Sullivan and Cary don't believe Holder's leadership alone is enough to protect defendants from bad prosecutorial decisions. A framework of fairness that will remain after current Justice Department leadership is no longer in power is the only way to ensure lasting reform, they said in the letter dated June 15.

To support their point, the letter underscores the need to protect all people -- not just the privileged and the powerful -- from wrongful prosecution. To reinforce the point, they offered this remark from James E. Coleman, a professor at Duke University School of Law who specializes in wrongful convictions:

Many of the people who will praise Mr. Holder for dropping the charges against Mr. Stevens will not care that the same kind of misconduct routinely taints the trials of those who are not rich, or famous, or well-connected, or well-regarded. Nor will they likely step back and learn from what happened to Mr. Stevens.

"We must learn from what happened to Mr. Stevens," Sullivan and Cary wrote. "Amending Rule 16 to provide that all exculpatory evidence be provided to the defense -- with appropriate accommodations for privacy, witness safety and national security -- would go a long way to restore our confidence and the public's confidence in our system of justice."

Contact Jill Burke at jill(at)alaskadispatch.com.