Rose’s conduct during raid shows her qualifications to be judge

By Michael K. Lahammer

----

I feel compelled to respond to attorney Rockne Cole's criticism (March 9) of Stephanie Rose as a nominee for U.S. District Court judge, as I was one of more than a dozen federal criminal defense attorneys who defended the illegal aliens arrested during the raid in Postville on May 12, 2008.

Cole's comments reveal precisely the reason that Rose is well qualified for this lifetime appointment. He criticizes her for not injecting her personal opinions and bias into her role as one of several prosecutors who worked on this case. His complaints rise solely against the immigration policies that Congress has established as the laws of our country rather than in any actions by Rose.

Specifically, a federal judge must be free from bias, uninfluenced by personal opinions, and without any personal agenda in deciding the issues presented. Any exercised discretion must be within the confines of established legal and ethical boundaries. That is how Rose carried out her responsibilities regarding the Postville defendants. Those are the qualities that I, as a federal defense attorney, desire in every one of the judges that I appear in front of.

The statement that the defense attorneys who represented the Postville defendants are walking “in lock-step” supporting Rose demeans the extremely well-qualified, respected defense attorneys who worked tirelessly and diligently ensuring that the rights of each and every accused were protected during this difficult period.

Each of the defense attorneys, with unfettered access to our clients, was able to examine each individual client's situation including the specific evidence against each person. Based upon that review, each defense attorney would then evaluate the government's case and determine whether the government could prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Only then was a recommendation made to each client individually whether to accept the plea terms or put the government to its burden of proof.

During every phase, Rose was available for clarifications, providing additional information where needed, and for presenting deviations from proposed plea agreements based on each individual's circumstances. She willingly exercised prosecutorial discretion where needed and where available. When requests went beyond her authority, she went to her supervisors to advocate for the changes to be made. As a result, defense attorneys were able to, among other concessions, waive automatic deportation for clients who had U.S.-born children.

Cole also criticized, unfairly, the rejection of humanitarian U-Visas by the U.S. Attorney's Office by Rose and others in her office. This ignores the strict requirements for the visas, which must be approved by the Department of Homeland Security and not the prosecutor. Further, only specific crimes are eligible, but not possessing false documents or illegal entry cases.

Finally, Cole cited in his criticism of Rose one of the interpreters, Erik Camayd-Freixas, who has been praised by humanitarian groups for speaking out against the “abuse” that he witnessed. Again, the interpreter's criticisms have been directed more toward his disagreement with the country's immigration policies than procedures of the Postville prosecutions. He also lacks the legal qualifications to fairly evaluate the process each defense attorney used.

I have known Rose since she first began her career with the U.S. Attorney's Office, have opposed her in numerous cases, and still believe her to possess each and every quality that every citizen should desire in a federal judge. Fair, unbiased, and free from any personal agenda.

Michael K. Lahammer is a federal attorney from Cedar Rapids. Comments: mlahamm@aol.com