In reversing the convictions of three once-powerful Reagan administration officials-Lyn Nofziger, Oliver North, and, last month, John Poindexter-the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has consistently cleaved along straight party lines.
Each of the eight Reagan-appointed and Bush-appointed judges (including now-Justice Clarence Thomas) has voted to reverse each of the convictions that he or she has reviewed.
And each of the four Carter-appointed judges has voted to affirm (at least in part) each of the convictions he or she has reviewed.
In all, Reagan/Bush judges have cast a combined total of 12 votes for reversing these three convictions, and Carter-appointed judges have registered a combined total of seven dissents.
Nofziger, North, and Poindexter are the only high-ranking Reaganites who have appealed convictions to the D.C. Circuit. Each was prosecuted by an independent counsel.
(In a fourth case, which did not lead to criminal charges, two Reagan appointees in 1988 struck down the law providing for such independent counsel, over a Carter appointee’s dissent. The Supreme Court reversed that decision by 7-1.)
Why have the Reagan/Bush judges-far more likely than the Carter appointees to side with prosecutors in the ordinary run of criminal cases-been such vigilant guardians of the procedural rights of the accused in these cases?
Why have they so unanimously found inadmissible evidence of unchallenged reliability that proved North and Poindexter had committed serious federal crimes?
Conversely, why have the Carter judges- usually so solicitous of the rights of criminal defendants-voted to spurn the appeals of these defendants?
Why have they rejected the arguments of, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (in amicus briefs) that the North, Poindexter, and Nofziger prosecutions offended important constitutional principles?