Prominent Democrat DA Faces Federal Grand Jury Investigation

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner is facing a federal criminal investigation after the Department of Justice reportedly issued grand jury subpoenas to his office. The development follows a federal judge’s referral raising allegations of obstruction of justice, perjury, and other potential violations involving the handling of a murder conviction appeal.

According to Fox News, two sources familiar with the investigation confirmed that the subpoenas were delivered in recent days. Federal authorities are examining whether Krasner’s office improperly interfered with proceedings before a federal court, marking a significant escalation in a controversy involving one of Philadelphia’s most prominent Democratic officials.

Fox News Host Tomi Lahren STUNS Fans with Must-See Photos →

The investigation follows a September 15 ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond, who referred Krasner and senior prosecutor Matthew Stiegler to federal authorities for possible criminal prosecution. Diamond identified evidence suggesting that the officials may have engaged in misconduct involving false statements, obstruction of justice, perjury, and conspiracy.

Neither Krasner nor Stiegler has been charged with a crime, and the allegations remain under investigation. However, the reported issuance of grand jury subpoenas indicates that federal prosecutors are actively examining evidence surrounding the judge’s findings.

The controversy originated in a longstanding murder case involving Dennis Johnson, who was convicted in 2009 of killing Kenyatta Smith. Johnson subsequently challenged his conviction, arguing that his original defense attorney had provided inadequate legal representation.

In 2022, Krasner’s office submitted filings supporting Johnson’s request for federal habeas corpus relief, a legal procedure allowing prisoners to challenge the constitutionality of their detention.

Questions later emerged about the district attorney’s handling of the case, particularly regarding potential conflicts of interest involving Stiegler and disagreements among prosecutors over how to proceed.

Several attorneys within the office recommended transferring responsibility to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office because of concerns about those conflicts.

According to Diamond’s findings, Krasner resisted that recommendation and insisted that his office maintain involvement in the proceedings to “protect the office.”

The judge further alleged that Krasner and Stiegler attempted to pressure prosecutors into presenting a misleading account of internal decisions to the federal court.

Diamond also raised concerns about warnings of “consequences” directed at employees who might disclose the office’s internal conflict.

“I have thus reluctantly concluded that Philadelphia’s highest law enforcement official and one of his top assistants may have violated the law,” Diamond wrote in his ruling.

The judge subsequently removed Krasner and Stiegler from further participation in Johnson’s case, although other prosecutors within the district attorney’s office were permitted to continue handling the matter.

Diamond’s referral prompted federal authorities to consider whether the conduct described in his findings warranted criminal investigation or prosecution.

As of today, how will you VOTE in November?

Republican Democrat

Krasner has strongly rejected the allegations, maintaining that the judge’s conclusions were incorrect and indicating that he intends to challenge the ruling through the appeals process.

“I respectfully and vigorously disagree with the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law,” Krasner said following the referral.

“I look forward to appealing to the higher court as soon as the law allows. This remains a pending matter, which limits for now my and my office’s ability to respond in the media.”

The Justice Department has declined to publicly discuss the subpoenas, while Krasner’s office did not immediately respond to the latest requests for comment. Although the investigation could lead to additional legal action, a grand jury subpoena does not establish guilt or guarantee an indictment.