A senior U.S. Secret Service inspector admitted today that she destroyed original evidence sought in a long-standing lawsuit alleging that the service routinely discriminates against African American agents.
The team of assistant U.S. attorneys representing the service told U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson today that they did not know that the inspector had placed the documents in a “burn bag” for destruction just two days before she was scheduled to testify in the case.
Inspector Carrie Hunnicutt testified that she questioned more than 150 senior service officials under an order from Robinson about their search for all paper documents related to the promotion of black agents in a civil lawsuit filed in federal court eight years ago.
Nearly 60 African Americans allege in sworn statements that they were leapfrogged by white agents who scored lower on promotional exams and forced to endure the use of the word “nigger” on the job. They are seeking certification for a class-action lawsuit, but so far have not made it past the discovery stage.
Hunnicutt testified that she destroyed surveys from 50 high ranking officials; a statistical report; fax sheets and documents that showed who was contacted during the service’s search for paper documents in the case.
Hunnicutt said she placed the documents in a “burn bag” on Jan. 30, 2008, just two days before she was scheduled to testify about the the service’s efforts to comply with Robinson’s Dec. 21st court order to hunt for documents.
Robinson told the lawyers that she was “shocked” that a Secret Service agent would destroy documents. The Secret Service’s own counsel has ordered the agency’s employees to retain all documents relevant to the case.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Marina Utgoff Braswell told Robinson that she and the rest of the legal team did not learn about the extent of the destruction until Hunnicutt testified today.
“We are all learning for the first time what happened here,” Braswell said. Hunnicutt’s supervisor told the government lawyers on Tuesday that there were some “scraps of paper” that were destroyed but he did not elude to the destruction of the original surveys.
Braswell said her hands were tied to find out more information about the destroyed documents in advance of the hearing because of a court order forbidding Hunnicutt from talking to anyone about the case.
“We have certainly not been dilatory,” Braswell said.
The team of lawyers from Hogan & Hartson and Relman & Dane representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit for free said the burning of the documents is an “outrageous act” and in defiance of the service’s own order to preserve all documents in the case.
“I am shocked and disappointed in the U.S. Secret Service and their inability to retain and produce evidence relevant to our claims,” said E. Desmond Hogan, a lawyer with Hogan & Hartson in Washington. “This is representative of a pattern of behavior in this case. It shows how they disrespect and mistreat the plaintiffs in the case.”
Under questioning by assistant U.S. attorney Michelle Johnson, Hunnicutt said she destroyed the documents because she wanted the most accurate ones to be sent to court.
Hunnicutt said she noticed that some of the surveys, about 50, were misnumbered in January. So she “transferred” the correct information to the newly numbered surveys.
But during the cross-examination, Hogan argued that by destroying the original documents, the court would have no way to independently verify her work as accurate.
Robinson had to intervene several times during the questioning to instruct Hunnicutt to answer Hogan’s question. Nearly every single objection was overruled by Robinson in favor of the plaintiffs.
Posts
Comments
By vanessa
February 22, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this
ms. hunnicutt should be fired and the case should be over in favor of the african americans. her actions show they have something to hide and probably trying to cover up. i am seeing more and more racism around american and it is disgusting. we are going backwards. i am fighting my job now for discrimination against african americans. good luck to the african americans in this case. i pray they win. i applaud the judge for showing fairness and sensitivity to planiffs. thank you judge. this case has giving me more hope.
By John
February 22, 2008 11:17 PM | Link to this
Inspector Hunnicutt’s action indicates their is something to hide. Was she told by her superiors to destroy the documents?
By Andy
February 24, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
ess whatever evidence she destroyed was really that bad…or just the Secret Service in overkill mode again. http://www.spymac.com/details/?2346186
By Tom Ritchford
February 24, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
Aren’t there laws against destroying evidence? At the very least she should be held in contempt of court. So despicable!
By Patrick Henry
February 24, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this
Why is that the FBI/CIA/Police always say “If you have nothing to hide…” but the same theory does not apply to them?
By Mary
February 24, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
Good point, Patrick, but then again, almost everyone is a hipocrite once in a while.
This really is odd though. Why did she admit to destroying evidence at all?
By dt
February 24, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this
She should be held to the same standard as Sandy Berger.
By Gerry
February 24, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this
Sorry to be off-topic with what many will see as a trivial issue, but it irks me when journalists misuse language and the publication doesn’t bother to edit.
“…there were some “scraps of paper” that were destroyed but he did not elude to the destruction of the original surveys.”
The word that was probably intended was ‘allude’, which means to make an indirect reference, not ‘elude’, which means to evade, avoid, or escape. But ‘allude’ isn’t the best choice either, because this was a direct reference, not an indirect one.
“Allude and allusion are often used where the more general terms refer and reference would be preferable. Allude and allusion normally apply to indirect references in which the source is not specifically identified: “Well, we’ll always have Paris,” he told the travel agent, in an allusion to Casablanca. Refer and reference, unless qualified, usually imply specific mention of a source: I will refer to Hamlet for my conclusion…..” thefreedictionary.com
By Jason
February 24, 2008 7:36 PM | Link to this
This case should be dropped! The ‘African American’ cocks should quit b***, soon enough, there will be a black POTUS, and most of the secret service will be black…
Who gives two s**, suck it up, live with it, and it will come back to you ten fold!
By Pierre Lefeuvre
February 24, 2008 7:39 PM | Link to this
No it wasn’t that bad, it was joke of the day they were burning! My God what is this? You are a trawl or you are a jerk! Corruption is all around and we have jerks like you minimizing the gravity of the situation. Wake up america
By noah
February 24, 2008 8:58 PM | Link to this
they should not end the case right now and vote for the african americans you retard. that would be unconstitutional.
Original here