The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Prosecutor Disbarred for Forged Texts Apparently Aimed at Framing Co-Worker for Sexual Harassment
The Denver Post (Shelly Bradbury) was apparently the first to report on the story:
Yujin Choi falsely accused Dan Hines, a criminal investigator in the district attorney's office, of sexually harassing her, according to the Tuesday ruling from the Office of Presiding Disciplinary Judge, which handles professional discipline for Colorado attorneys.
Choi created fake text messages, altered her cellphone records and ultimately destroyed her laptop and phone to try to sell her deceit, the 26-page ruling found.
You can read more in the article, or in the decision, People v. Choi (thanks to ArsTechnica for posting it). The most serious of the purported texts (which alluded to a complaint Choi made about Hines a year before), read:
Yujin, please stop talking about what I didn't do to our colleagues. You are using your looks against innocent people. If you want to act like a sex doll to get a sugar daddy … fine, but that will not be me.
Eventually the facts emerged, through forensic investigation by the DA's office (forensic investigation that Choi apparently tried to stymie by causing water damage to her phone and laptop). The decision of the Colorado Supreme Court Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge stated, among other things,
Respondent's fabrication of false messages reflects adversely on her fitness to practice because it undermines the pursuit of truth—the very foundation on which our system of justice rests. As the Colorado Supreme Court noted in In re Pautler, "[l]awyers serve our system of justice, and if lawyers are dishonest, then there is a perception that the system, too, must be dishonest." Deception within the ranks of prosecutors in whatever form poses an even greater danger of eroding public confidence in the legal system and its practitioners. For that reason, the Pautler court "applied the prohibition against deception a fortiori to prosecutors." Robinson's testimony breathed life into this postulate: Robinson noted that the DA's Office was concerned that members of the public or the bar might think that Respondent had potentially altered evidence in criminal cases she prosecuted. We thus do not hesitate to find that Respondent's purposeful campaign to smear Hines's character, which sullied his reputation at the DA's Office and jeopardized his job and his livelihood, constitutes direct, intentional, and wrongful infliction of harm that reflects adversely on her fitness to practice law….
Respondent caused Hines reputational and emotional injury. This damage was all the greater because Respondent was a prosecutor, Hines asserted. Respondent also betrayed close coworkers and trusted confidants, including Robinson and Cohen, who advocated for her during the investigation. For those employees who continue to believe her, she contributed to what seems to us a rift of distrust with the Front Office.
More broadly, she poisoned the morale of the DA's Office, contributing to an environment in which victims feared they might be disbelieved and others feared they might be wrongly accused. Further, her actions called into question whether the evidence in the criminal cases she prosecuted was genuine [though apparently an investigation found no evidence of fabrication in those cases -EV]. Finally, her deception not only tarnishes the reputation of prosecutors, the profession, and by extension the legal system, but also threatens to undermine the credibility of sexual harassment victims who seek to hold accountable those who harmed them….
Unremitting honesty must at all times be the backbone of the legal profession. When a lawyer repeatedly employs deceit and dishonesty to harm another person, that lawyer corrodes the integrity of the profession and threatens to compromise public confidence in the legal system. Such behavior seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law and should be met with disbarment.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The disbarred lawyer pleaded PTSD in mitigation. The decision notes a previous case where a lawyer was merely suspended for falsifying evidence for personal gain because "the lawyer's significant personal problems justified downgrading the sanction to a three-year suspension." Her claim of PTSD was unpersuasive and this precedent was not followed.
Where was she in combat? Which branch of the military?
PTSD isn’t limited to combat veterans.
I do not know if she served in combat, much less where. She claimed PTSD, not shell shock. Quoting the decision:
The PTSD may be bogus, but these are weak reasons for saying so. Counseling from April to August should be long enough, and it is not the job of a counselor to assess a legal complaint.
She's not licensed -- her supervisor should have signed off on it.
Ars Technica links to sanctions opinion:
"In that capacity, she (ed: a counselor) counseled Respondent from April through August 2024 and testified as an expert on Respondent’s behalf. Wynn diagnosed Respondent with post-traumatic stress disorder and vicarious trauma brought on by Respondent’s emotionally taxing work in the FVU"
The doc is an interesting window into how digital investigations are done these days.
I can't read that previous case — it doesn't seem to be available via google and that's outside my westlaw subscription — but if (as described) it involved an ordinary lawyer, that's very very different than involving a prosecutor.
YES!!!!
It's about time!!!
Prof. Volokh: (I think I'll toss out some red meat.)
Dr Ed 2: (Mmmmm, red meat!)
Prof. Volokh: (nods approvingly in silence)
You don't think the punishment was appropriate in this case?
My comment has nothing to do with the merits of the decision (which I unconditionally agree with), and everything to do with Prof. Volokh posting this red meat specifically for folks like Dr Ed 2 (and it worked!) - and I base that observation on Prof. V not providing an opinion.
You don't think Prof. Volokh should post about cases like this because it might confirm some of Dr. Ed's views?
You think that posting cases that don't support your narrative is "throwing read meat" to people you disagree with?
Justice was served -- justice and not "just us."
#shelied
From Ars Technica:
"Investigators then went directly to Verizon for records, which showed that "Ms. Choi had texted the inappropriate messages to herself," according to the Times. "In addition, she changed the name in her phone to make it appear as though Mr. Hines was the one who had sent them.""
You have to be pretty out of it to think you can get away with that. Cell phone evidence is common enough a prosecutor should know that.
Also as a result of her earlier accusation "Hines denied it and nothing could be proven, but he was still transferred to another unit", so the harm is more than just a false investigation.
An arrogant prosecutor, used to prosecuting men lacking competent counsel, well may not have known it could be obtained from Verizon.
Or maybe thought that no one would ever bother to do so.
So it's not just white and black women who are crazy?
Of course not! What a racist thing to say.
They're all crazy.
From the post:
I certainly think that Respondent had potentially altered evidence in criminal cases she prosecuted.
It claims that there was no evidence discovered of that — but I question how motivated they would be to look for and find evidence that a prosecutor had fabricated evidence against a defendant.
I'd think they'd be VERY motivated to find it first, considering the defendants and various watchdogs will certainly be looking for it.
I too, think that Respondent altered evidence in criminal cases she prosecuted.
12,
Really? I think that's a surprisingly-confident conclusion. (It would not be surprising at all if you 'suspected' it. Or 'feared' that it had happened.) But if you actually think it happened; it sounds like you're privy to details that the rest of us don't have...something that gave you a specific reason to disbelieve the actual investigation that occurred.
As has been noted earlier in this thread, I'm cynical re the investigation being full-throated and totally objective, given the clear potential motivations of the DA's office to minimize its own reputational harm. But I've seen nothing that makes me think that this woman doctored evidence in her cases, even though I'm concerned about that possibility.
"It would not be surprising at all if you 'suspected' it. Or 'feared' that it had happened."
So it's OK to suspect it happened, but thinking it happened it a bridge too far?
Given that she did it in this case, and that as a prosecutor she presumably had incentive and opportunity to do so in lots of other cases, I'd be shocked if this were her first adventure in this type of behavior.
"something that gave you a specific reason to disbelieve the actual investigation that occurred."
What investigation?
The investigation EV believes apparently happened, of course:
"[though apparently an investigation found no evidence of fabrication in those cases -EV]."
Thanks. It's not apparent to me that there was an investigation, although EV might have more information.
The sanctions opinion only says, "DA’s Office never saw
anything to suggest that Respondent behaved deceptively while prosecuting FVU matters."
If there was an investigation, I'm willing to believe that it found no evidence of deception. But I still think she fabricated evidence in other cases.
Well, see: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/massachusetts-high-court-disbars-top-prosecutor-drug-lab-scandal-2023-08-31/
Maura Healey didn't want to know.
They couldn't recover data from her laptop because she spilled a bottle of water on it?
So.........we're no longer "Believing all the women"?
Yes, I just logged in to ask about that. I'm very confused, because I've been assured no woman would ever lie about such things. It's literally impossible for one to be mentally unwell and make false allegations. Or go to great lengths to disguise she has.
I know the right likes to take liberal slogans literally and make hay, but this is kind of ridiculous.
So you honestly think that the policy up until now has been that women never lie, or that anyone is arguing that?
Obviously we shouldn't automatically believe women.
So people who say things like "Believe Women!" should be mocked, right?
Like the comments you're responding to are doing?
Are you really going to gaslight me like this?
I watched the Kavanaugh hearings. The now sitting vice president of the United States read into the record, on behalf of her fellow Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, gang rape allegations against a nominated sitting federal judge.
I lived through the Duke lacrosse case.
These are not just liberal slogans. They are what a segment of the left believes, and its political leaders are more than happy to indulge. And anyone who disagrees is a misogynist who favors sexual assault.
The Obama/Biden Title IX campus sexual assault regulations exist. Some on the left view any cross-examination of women accusers as abusive that should be forbidden by law. Like there's an exception to constitutional due process criminal protections.
So yes, I completely agree that women never lie is much more than a slogan. #MeToo