By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 1, 2007

A former federal prosecutor and a State Department security officer were acquitted yesterday of charges that they withheld evidence from defense attorneys and sought to cover up lies in a terrorism case once considered one of the most important brought after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Jurors in Detroit found former assistant U.S. attorney Richard G. Convertino, 46, and State Department Special Agent Harry R. Smith III not guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and making false statements in connection with the 2003 prosecution of four North African men alleged to be part of a terrorist cell.

After the Justice Department announced that it had uncovered serious prosecutorial misconduct involving dozens of pieces of evidence, a judge in 2004 dismissed three convictions in the original terrorism case.

"We are very gratified by the insight of the jury and their ability to discern the case for what it was, nothing substantive, and that Mr. Convertino should be hailed as the true hero, that he was trying to save lives after 9/11," said William M. Sullivan Jr., Convertino's attorney.

"We're pleased that justice was done, and I think that's all we really need to say," said Thomas W. Cranmer, an attorney for Smith.

In Washington, Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra said in an e-mail statement: "We believe in the case and its importance to the system, and we respect the jury's verdict."

Prosecutors alleged that during the initial trial, Convertino concealed photographs of a Jordanian hospital taken by Smith and another State Department staff member. Prosecutors said that the photos would have cast doubt on Convertino's allegation that Karim Koubriti and three other North African immigrants made a casing sketch of the hospital in preparation for an attack.

Smith testified that he had no photographs to compare with the sketch, which was recovered from an apartment used by some of the defendants.

Jurors in the Convertino case deliberated seven hours after a three-week trial before U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow.

In the original terrorism case, the government accused the four men of being part of a sleeper cell waiting for orders. After the misconduct allegations surfaced, U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen, also in the Eastern District of Michigan, ordered a Justice Department inquiry. He later rebuked then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft for a "distressing lack of care" in his statements about the initial case, and the government for acting "outside the Constitution."

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics, said the case posed an extraordinary and rare paradox for jurors, who saw the government turn against one of its own prosecutors and accuse him of criminal misconduct, using terms that it routinely rejects when such charges are raised by defense lawyers.

"It may be that the Department of Justice felt they owed the court something, some more serious attention and a harsher response than would ordinarily ensue," Gillers said.

Gillers cautioned against drawing broad inferences from the case. But given the department's focus on terrorism-related prosecutions and the political heat on prosecutors, he said that "there's always the danger, when you're overeager, that you will cut corners, even unintentionally, and this might be a warning signal for us."

Convertino has a private law practice in Plymouth, Mich., and Smith remains an employee of the State Department, living in the Washington area, their lawyers said.