The Justice Department sent grand jury subpoenas to Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s office after a federal judge said Krasner may have broken the law in a murder case.
Story Highlights
- Two sources say the subpoenas are tied to possible obstruction of justice in cases before federal judges.
- Krasner, Philadelphia’s Democrat district attorney, has not been charged, and neither has his top deputy.
- A federal judge said Krasner may have pushed his staff to give the court a false story in the Dennis Johnson murder case.
- Krasner says he “respectfully and vigorously” disagrees with the judge and plans to appeal.
Subpoenas Follow a Judge’s Referral
Two sources said federal prosecutors sent the subpoenas to Krasner’s office in the days before the news broke on Tuesday, October 20, and that they focus on possible obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice means trying to block or mislead a court or an investigation. The subpoenas came after U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond referred Krasner, his top deputy Matthew Stiegler and the district attorney’s office to federal prosecutors on Tuesday, September 15. Krasner’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and the Justice Department declined to comment.
A grand jury subpoena is a court order that makes a person or an office hand over records or give testimony. A grand jury is a panel of citizens that hears evidence in secret and decides whether there is enough to bring charges. A subpoena is not a charge. It shows federal prosecutors are gathering evidence tied to the judge’s concerns. Neither Krasner nor Stiegler has been charged with any crime.
Krasner Says He Will Appeal
When the judge ruled in September, Krasner said, “I respectfully and vigorously disagree with the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.” He said he looked forward to appealing “to the higher court as soon as the law allows.” He also said the case was still pending, which limited what he and his office could say in public.
Later in September, Krasner’s office asked the judge to reconsider. In that filing, Krasner called the referral “virtually unprecedented” and said the findings “twist the truth to the point of breaking.” His office argued the findings are not supported by the evidence and wrongly suggest crimes by Krasner and Stiegler. Krasner also asked the judge to step aside from the case.
What the Judge Found in the Dennis Johnson Case
The fight grew out of the case of Dennis Johnson, who was convicted in 2009 of second-degree murder in the killing of Kenyatta Smith. Johnson has spent years trying to overturn that conviction. In 2022, Krasner’s office told the court Johnson deserved relief because his trial lawyer had done a poor job. Prosecutors in the office later raised a possible conflict of interest involving Stiegler and urged that the case be handed to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office. According to the judge’s opinion, Krasner opposed that and said someone from his office had to stay involved to “protect the office.”
In a 40-page ruling, Judge Diamond wrote that Krasner may have urged staff to “implement and present a false narrative to the court.” Supervisors testified that Krasner warned of “consequences” if they told the court about the conflict, which they took to mean they could be fired. The judge wrote that Philadelphia’s highest law enforcement official and one of his top assistants “may have violated the law.” He said the evidence could show false statements, perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Perjury means lying under oath. He removed Krasner and Stiegler from the Johnson case but did not remove the whole office.
A Formal Process, Not a Public Accusation
The judge held hearings that began in May, took sworn testimony and then sent the matter to federal prosecutors. That order of events matters. It separates this from a simple public accusation. Prosecutors’ offices often take a second look at old convictions, and that work can correct real mistakes. It can also lead to clashes when staff believe ethical lines are being crossed, as the supervisors in this case testified they did. For families, officers and victims, the goal is simple: tell the truth in court and follow the law every step of the way.
Why This Matters to Law-and-Order Voters
Philadelphia families deserve safety and honest courts. When a judge says public lawyers may have lied or blocked justice, trust in the system is at risk. That threatens equal justice and the rule of law. Grand juries exist to cut through spin and gather facts. If officials lied or blocked justice, they should face real consequences. If not, the process will clear them. Either way, truth and accountability protect communities and the Constitution.
Sources:
nypost.com, thegatewaypundit.com, apnews.com, nbcphiladelphia.com, cnn.com
