I am opposed to the request for a subpoena to the former line prosecutor Stephen Mansfield.

Let me explain why I take this position even though Mr. Mansfield apparently requested a subpoena in his letter to Senator Specter's staff.

First, as I have stated many times, I have serious concerns about issuing subpoenas to line attorneys in all but "extraordinary circumstances." These concerns relate to the detrimental effect our actions will have on the free-exchange of ideas in prosecutors offices. These concerns are no less present when we subpoena a former line attorney such as Mr. Mansfield. The potential for a "chilling effect" remains even if Mr. Mansfield, in his personal capacity, has indicated his preference for a subpoena when called to testify about his experiences as a line prosecutor in the Central District of California. The strong policy reasons for opposing subpoenas to line attorneys in all but "exceptional circumstances" apply here.

Second, the only apparent purpose in seeking Mr. Mansfield's testimony is apparently to establish that when he was a line attorney in California an investigation into the Hsi Lai temple allegations was taken away from him and investigated instead by Main Justice. Since these facts are not disputed, what is the purpose of demanding that Mr. Mansfield appear before the Committee, if in fact that is what his testimony would be?

As I understand it, Mr. Mansfield had limited involvement in this investigation and it certainly would not be the first time that a division of Main Justice has assumed responsibility for a prosecution. The fact is that Main Justice had a much broader responsibility of evaluating evidence that might trigger the Independent Counsel statute – a responsibility that is exercised in the first instance by Main Justice, not by line attorneys in regional U.S. Attorney Offices. To the extent that the Hsi Lai Temple investigation could have led to such evidence, Main Justice would have been remiss in carrying out its responsibilities to have allowed this case to be conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Moreover, since Main Justice had commenced a broader investigation, a part of which was the investigation of allegations arising from the Hsi Lai Temple case, it was important to have the investigation coordinated in Main Justice to benefit the entire investigation. In fact, the Public Integrity Section has, to date, indicted two individuals in connection with this case, and obtained a jury verdict convicting defendant Maria Hsia of five felony counts. I see no factual justification for this subpoena, particularly in light of the important public policy considerations militating against its issuance.