ISSUE: Should Steve Wasserman recuse himself from criminal prosecution cases involving Imran Awan?

RULE: 3-2.170 - Recusals When United States Attorneys, or their offices, become aware of an issue that could require a recusal in a criminal or civil matter or case as a result of a personal interest or professional relationship with parties involved in the matter, they must contact General Counsel's Office (GCO), EOUSA. The requirement of recusal does not arise in every instance, but only where a conflict of interest exists or there is an appearance of a conflict of interest or loss of impartiality. 3-2.220 - Recusals The same circumstances which require that a United States Attorney recuse himself/herself (see USAM 3-2.170) apply to an Assistant United States Attorney. https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-3-2000-united-states-attorneys-ausas-special-assistants-and-agac#3-2.170

APPLICATION: According to his own LinkedIn page, Steve Wasserman is an “Assistant US Attorney at United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.” So, the US Attorney Manual Rules apply to him.

ANALYSIS: Steve Wasserman is Debbie Wasserman’s brother (see DWS wikipedia). DWS was the former Chair of the DNC. Imran Awan was/is a paid employee with the DNC, including the IT Specialist for DWS (see interview with DWS spokesperson). Awan was recently arraigned in Washington DC on bank fraud charges. Awan’s lawyer is Chris Gowen, who has many connections with the DNC. In a letter to media, Gowen stated that this case is merely about “disclosures on a modest real estate matter.” Also, Gowen stated that the Awan family is having financial difficulty, so Imran is here working to manage the situation.

We have several scenarios here…

A) The “disclosures on a modest real estate matter” have nothing to do with the DNC. If this is the case, how did Imran afford such a high-priced lawyer when it seems like he is struggling financially? It is possible Gowen took the case Pro Bono. However, if he did, he would have to continually ensure that his criminal defense did not, in any way, affect his prior representations for the DNC + affiliates. Also, why would Gowen choose THIS defendant if not connected to the DNC whatsoever? “Ultra right-wing conservatives” have conspiracy theories against so many people who are casually linked to the DNC and eventually arrested for various reasons. Remember, for this scenario to be true, Imran is merely a former part-time IT contractor for the DNC, which is obviously extremely LOW on the totem pole, who potentially made improper “disclosures” on a random “real estate matter.” Gowen probably wouldn’t make his name on this case (he already previously has on DNC cases).

B) The “disclosures on a modest real estate matter” are directly related to the DNC.

C) The “disclosures on a modest real estate matter” are or are not related to the DNC, but they are merely placeholders for DNC-related charges. These DNC-related charges uncover the DNC as co-conspirators. Because the DNC’s interests are on the opposite side of the “v.” in US v. Awan, Steve would potentially cross-examine his sister.

D) The “disclosures on a modest real estate matter” are or are not related to the DNC, but they are merely placeholders for DNC-related charges. These DNC-related charges uncover the DNC as victims. Because the DNC’s interests are on the opposite side of Awan, Awan could make the argument that Steve and the Attorney General went after him harder because of his relationship with its head member, thus giving him legitimate appellate rights and fodder for the defense attorney in closing arguments. Also, this situation might create problems with Gowen because of his prior legal work for DNC + affiliates.

CONCLUSION: In any instance, DWS could potentially be called by the defense as a character witness or percipient witness because of her relationship to Iwan. Imagine Steve having to cross-examine his sister. DWS could also be called on the prosecution side giving off the appearance of impropriety when Steve does a direct examination with his sister. Remember, the standard is that a party involved (not necessarily a party to the case) must create the APPEARANCE of conflict or partiality, not ACTUAL conflict or partiality. Thus, when a reasonable person derives that there is an APPEARANCE with someone involved, then the prosecutor must recuse himself. Here, DWS could/would be a "party involved" in any instance and thus because of her relationship to the prosecutor, he should recuse.