A federal judge has kicked Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner and one of his top deputies off a murder case and referred both to federal prosecutors for potential criminal charges, finding evidence they may have pressured their own staff to lie in court to get a killer's conviction thrown out.
U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond Jr. issued a 40-page memo laying out his findings and ordering the referral to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The judge did not hold back about what he believed the evidence showed.
"I have thus reluctantly concluded that Philadelphia's highest law enforcement official and one of his top assistants may have violated the law," Judge Diamond wrote, as Just The News reported.
At the center of the dispute is the relitigation of a 2009 murder conviction. Krasner's office had been handling the post-conviction proceedings when, the judge found, things went sideways in a way that looked less like advocacy and more like obstruction.
Judge Diamond found evidence that Krasner and Assistant District Attorney Matthew Stiegler ordered line prosecutors to "protect the office" and attempted to persuade staff members to accept what the judge called a "false narrative." The judge concluded that this conduct potentially amounted to criminal conspiracy, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice.
Testimony in the case suggested that Krasner and Stiegler pressured prosecutors to lie in court, National Review reported. The goal, the judge's findings indicate, was to conceal the DA's office's own support for overturning the murder conviction rather than defending it.
That distinction matters. A district attorney's office is supposed to represent the state's interest in upholding valid convictions during post-conviction proceedings. When the office secretly works to undermine a conviction it is duty-bound to defend, the conflict of interest is not just ethical. It is, in the judge's view, potentially criminal.
Judge Diamond did not stop at the referral. He disqualified both Krasner and Stiegler from any further participation in the case, finding that their personal interests now directly conflicted with their responsibilities as prosecutors.
The disqualification order, as the Daily Caller detailed, strips the elected DA and his deputy of the ability to touch the case going forward. A different set of prosecutors will need to handle the relitigation of the 2009 murder conviction.
The judge's reasoning was straightforward. Once Krasner and Stiegler became subjects of a potential criminal investigation stemming from their conduct in the very same case, they could no longer credibly represent the Commonwealth's interests. Their need to protect themselves legally had overtaken their obligation to the public.
Krasner has not taken the ruling quietly. The DA vowed to challenge the judge's findings on appeal.
"I respectfully and vigorously disagree with the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. I look forward to appealing to the higher court as soon as the law allows."
That statement, attributed to Krasner by Just The News, signals that the DA plans to fight the disqualification and presumably contest the factual basis for the criminal referral. Whether an appellate court will revisit Judge Diamond's factual findings or limit its review to legal questions remains to be seen.
Krasner did not, in his public statement, address the specific allegations that his office pressured prosecutors to lie or that he directed staff to "protect the office" rather than fulfill their duties to the court.
The referral lands on top of an already troubled tenure for Krasner, who has drawn sustained criticism from President Donald Trump and Pennsylvania Republicans over what they describe as soft-on-crime policies, the Washington Examiner noted. Krasner, a George Soros-backed progressive prosecutor, has been a lightning rod since taking office, embodying a prosecutorial philosophy that critics say prioritizes leniency over public safety.
The criminal referral shifts the conversation from policy disagreements to something far more concrete. Policy choices are the prerogative of an elected official. Alleged witness tampering and obstruction of justice are not.
Judge Diamond's 40-page memo lays out a detailed factual record. The referral now places the matter in the hands of federal prosecutors, who will decide whether the evidence warrants a formal investigation or charges against the sitting DA and his deputy.
Several critical questions remain unanswered. Investigators at the U.S. Attorney's Office will need to determine whether the evidence supports the judge's conclusions and whether a grand jury presentation is warranted. The scope of any investigation could extend beyond Krasner and Stiegler if other members of the DA's office participated in the alleged scheme.
Authorities have not publicly confirmed whether any federal investigation has formally opened in response to the referral. The timeline for Krasner's promised appeal is also unclear, though the disqualification order takes immediate practical effect on the murder case.
The 2009 murder conviction at the heart of the dispute remains in legal limbo. With Krasner's office removed from the proceedings, the Commonwealth will need to assign new counsel to handle the relitigation. Whether those new prosecutors will take the same posture toward the conviction that Krasner's team allegedly concealed is an open question with real consequences for the victim's family and the convicted defendant alike.
Progressive prosecutors backed by Soros-affiliated funding have reshaped criminal justice in cities across the country. Krasner has been one of the most prominent figures in that movement. His defenders cast him as a reformer willing to correct wrongful convictions and challenge a broken system. His critics see an ideologue willing to bend the rules to achieve outcomes the law does not support.
Judge Diamond's findings suggest something beyond ideology. If the allegations hold up, this is not a story about a DA exercising prosecutorial discretion. It is a story about a DA allegedly directing subordinates to deceive a federal court to engineer a preferred outcome in a murder case.
When the people tasked with enforcing the law are referred for breaking it, the system is supposed to hold them to the same standard it applies to everyone else. Whether it will in this case is now up to federal prosecutors.
