Case 1:18-cr-00218-TSC Document 22 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MARIIA BUTINA,
Also known as Maria Butina,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Criminal Case: 18-cr-00218 (TSC)

NOTICE OF FILING
The United States of America, by and through its attorney, the United States Attorney for
the District of Columbia, hereby respectfully submits for the record a letter from the government
to defense counsel addressing recent violations of Local Rule 57.7(b).

Respectfully submitted,
JESSIE K. LIU
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
D.C. Bar Number 472845

By:

/s/
THOMAS N. SAUNDERS
Assistant United States Attorney
N.Y. Bar Number 4876975
United States Attorney’s Office
555 Fourth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: 202-252-7790
Email: thomas.saunders@usdoj.gov

 Case 1:18-cr-00218-TSC Document 22 Filed 08/23/18 Page 2 of 2

Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Notice was delivered via the Court’s
electronic filing system upon counsel for the defendant on this 23rd day of August, 2018.
/s/
THOMAS N. SAUNDERS
Assistant United States Attorney

 Case 1:18-cr-00218-TSC Document 22-1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 4

U.S. Department of Justice
Jessie K. Liu
United States Attorney
District of Columbia

Judiciary Center
555 Fourth St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

August 23, 2018
Via Email and U.S. Mail
Robert Driscoll, Esq.
McGlinchey Stafford, LLP
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Suite 420
Washington, D.C. 20004
Re: United States v. Mariia Butina, Case No. 18-218 (TSC)
Dear Mr. Driscoll:
We write to express our concerns about your apparent ongoing violations of Local Rule
57.7(b). Local Criminal Rule 57.7(b) imposes restrictions on both the government and defense
counsel. The Rule provides that a lawyer associated with a case “shall not release” any
extrajudicial statement to be disseminated by means of public communication, relating to inter
alia “the merits of the case or the evidence in the case.” LCrR 57.7(b)(3). Despite this clear
prohibition, the government has encountered multiple recent instances of you in the press
commenting about the merits and evidence of this case. You appear to have made these recent
comments even after the July 25, 2018 hearing, at which the Court cautioned you that it may
impose a gag order if any future statements are made in violation of the Local Rules. July 25,
2018 Hearing Tr. 9:19-10:3. Despite the Court’s admonition, the following statements were
attributed to you in a July 28, 2018 article in Politico:
•

You accused the government of making “false claims” and using “innuendo” and “guilt
by association” to “taint” the defendant;

•

You “confirmed [the defendant’s] dinner with [the head of a Russian governmentaffiliated cultural center], but [you] downplayed its significance”; and

1

 Case 1:18-cr-00218-TSC Document 22-1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 2 of 4

•

You “confirmed the Russian official’s identity after POLITICO asked [you] for
comment.” 1

The aforementioned July 28 article was not the only instance of your apparent violation of
Local Rule 57.7(b). In an article published by RT, dated August 1, 2018, for example:
•

“In response to reports that the judge presiding over the case had warned him
against ‘crossing a line’ by speaking to the media, [Mr.] Driscoll noted: ‘I think frankly
the risk is nil that a jury is going to be prejudice [sic] in favor of my client.’”

•

You also stated, regarding the government’s proffer of evidence from its memorandum
in support of pretrial detention, “[The honey trap] allegation was set forth in a proffer
by the government, meaning they did not produce evidence to back up that allegation
at the time. We’re still waiting to see that, and we’re not sure that it even exists, or that
it exists in any meaningful form” (brackets in original). 2

In an August 3, 2018 Washington Post article, you commented about alleged email
exchanges between the defendant and a former member of a political campaign. According to the
article, you stated that the email exchanges “show that Butina was a student eager to network with
Americans who shared her interests and no more.” You continued by saying that the former
member of the campaign was “[a] military guy who would have been involved would have been a
prime target, if that’s what she was about. . . . But the evidence is clear that there wasn’t any
significant contact.” 3
Finally, in an August 14, 2018 Politico article, you commented on the government’s
charges involving the relationship between the defendant and a specific Russian official. For
example:
•

You “scoffed at the notion that [the Russian official] is a master spy”;

•

You explained that in your “frequent talks” with the defendant, the defendant portrayed
the Russian official as “someone who genuinely has come to love America”;

•

You said the defendant’s connections to a Russian cultural center were merely social;

1

See “Accused Russian agent met with suspected Kremlin spy,” Josh Meyer, Politico.com, July 28, 2018,
available at https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/28/mariia-butina-russia-kremlin-suspected-spy-7460433.

2

See “‘In prison for advocating better US-Russian relation’: Butina lawyer on her ‘misunderstood’ case,”
August 1, 2018 (edited August 2, 2018), available at https://www.rt.com/usa/434871-maria-butina-lawyer-driscollinterview/.
3

See “Trump associate socialized with alleged Russian agent Maria Butina in final weeks of 2016 campaign,”
August 3, 2018, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-associate-socialized-with-allegedrussian-agent-maria-butina-in-final-weeks-of-2016-campaign/2018/08/03/d87c1d84-96a6-11e8-80e100e80e1fdf43_story.html?utm_term=.bb28deac58c3.

2

 Case 1:18-cr-00218-TSC Document 22-1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 3 of 4

•

You were quoted as offering your opinion that “[m]y impression of [the Russian
official] from knowing [the defendant] is that she viewed him as a mentor and as
someone who was helpful to her, with her gun rights group and personally. . . . He
helped raise her profile. . . .”; and

•

You were quoted as stating that the Russian official was “always eager . . . to meet with
Americans.” 4

In sum, you appear to have violated the Local Rule repeatedly.
Moreover, your comments were made in disregard of a recent warning from the Court. On
July 25, 2018, the Court conducted a status hearing in this case at which time the government
alerted the Court to earlier public comments and statements you had made. The government noted
the risk that such statements could jeopardize a fair and impartial trial of the defendant and that
such statements were in violation of Local Rule 57.7(b). The government also noted that such
statements might include inaccurate or misleading information but that the government—abiding
by its obligations under Rule 57.7(b)—would not be able to respond. The Court noted that “we
can’t really move trials” in the District of Columbia and that “[w]e have a relatively small and
limited jury pool” and then asked you: “Do you think it’s in your client’s interest to have her case
tried in the press?” July 25, 2018 Hearing Tr. 8:21-24. After the Court afforded you an opportunity
to be heard on this matter, the Court orally cautioned the parties. The Court reminded you, “[W]e
have local rules here,” and added, “I certainly don’t want to impose a gag order as other judges
have in other cases in this court, but I will entertain a motion or a request to do so if I think that
your statements cross the line and violate our local rules.” The Court concluded, “I am cautioning
you . . . at this stage.” Id. at 9:22-10:4. Your comments in the press since that hearing appear to
have been made without any regard to the Court’s admonition.
Local Rule 57.7(b) provides that it is a lawyer’s “duty” in a criminal case not to release
“information or opinion which a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of
public communication . . . if there is a reasonable likelihood that such dissemination will interfere
with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice.” LCrR 57.7(b)(1). The
Rule also provides that a lawyer associated with the prosecution or defense “shall not release or
authorize the release of any extrajudicial statement” to the press concerning the identity of
prospective witnesses, any opinion as to the accused’s guilt or innocence, any opinion concerning
the merits of the case, or any opinion concerning the evidence in the case. LCrR 57.7(b)(3). 5 Yet,
you have violated this rule repeatedly, both before and after the July 25th status conference.
4

See “Handler of alleged spy Butina tied to suspicious U.S.-Russia exchange program,” Josh Meyer,
Politico.com, available at https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/14/russia-americans-putin-torshin-776237.

5

LCrR 57.7(b)(1) states, “It is the duty of the lawyer . . . not to release or authorize the release of information
. . . if there is a reasonably likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the
due administration of justice.” The reference to interference with a fair trial or prejudicing the due administration of
justice is absent from subsection (b)(3). We note that the Second and Fourth Circuits have interpreted substantially
similar local rules within their Circuits to prohibit extrajudicial statements only if they meet the “reasonable
likelihood” standard articulated in subsection (b)(1). See United States v. Cutler, 58 F.3d 825, 835 (2d. Cir. 1995);
Hirschkop v. Snead, 594 F.2d 356, 365-68 (4th Cir. 1979). The United States believes that the examples cited in this
notice meet that standard.

3

 Case 1:18-cr-00218-TSC Document 22-1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 4 of 4

It is a practical impossibility to effectively monitor and review all possible forms of public
media or other means by which improper public statements might be conveyed. As officers of the
Court, the attorneys in this case must operate to a significant degree on an honor system.
Local Rule 57.7(b) serves to protect the integrity of the judicial process and protect both
the rights of the public and the defendant to a fair and impartial jury.
The government will be filing a copy of this letter on the case docket. Further, if the
government continues to encounter evidence of further violations of the Rule, the government may
seek relief from the Court.
Sincerely,
JESSIE K. LIU
United States Attorney
By:____/s/____________________
Erik M. Kenerson
Assistant United States Attorney
By:____/s/____________________
Thomas N. Saunders
Assistant United States Attorney
By:____/s/____________________
William A. Mackie
Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice
cc: Case Docket

4