U.S. District Judge John P. Fullam eventually sided with the government, saying that if there were any improper motives for bringing the case, they would become evident at trial, in cross-examination. He also noted that the decision to bring the indictments was made in May 2004 -- "long before Mr. Gonzales became attorney general." (Gonzales' swearing-in was in February 2005.)
The defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to bank fraud.
The firing of the eight prosecutors last year has drawn attention because once appointed, U.S. attorneys traditionally have been allowed to serve until they resign or are ousted because of misconduct. New administrations routinely make changes as well.
Gonzales has defended the dismissals as justified for performance reasons, saying that some of the prosecutors failed to follow administration law-enforcement priorities.
But Democrats say there is evidence that the dismissals were part of a Bush administration effort to affect investigations in public corruption and voting cases that would assist Republicans. The probe has also shown that politics may have played a role in the hiring of some career Justice employees, in possible violation of federal law.
The controversy has drained morale from U.S. attorney offices around the country. And now, legal experts and former Justice Department officials say, it is casting a shadow over the integrity of the department and its corps of career prosecutors in court.
There has long been a presumption that, because they represented the Justice Department, prosecutors had no political agenda and their word could be trusted. But some legal experts say the controversy threatens to undermine their credibility.
"It provides defendants an opportunity to make an argument that would not have been made two years ago," said Daniel J. French, a former U.S. attorney in Albany, N.Y. "It has a tremendously corrosive effect."
Defense lawyers in political corruption cases often argue to juries that the prosecution was motivated by politics, especially when the prosecutor happens to be of a different political party than the defendant.
B. Todd Jones, a former U.S. attorney in Minneapolis, said such arguments are now "given credence in the public eye because they are seeing that maybe there were political decisions made. Any defense lawyer worth their salt is going to say this is a political prosecution that shouldn't have been brought."
