Appellate Law

CA1: $3.1 award affirmed in FBI-agent leak case

By S. COTUS

McIntyre v. US, Nos. 07-1663, 07-1664.  This case has a very long and celebrated history.  But not much law is made here. Essentially, an FBI agent leaked the identity of a mob informant, and the mob informant was killed.  But, the facts reveal that various FBI agents were aware of the close relationship between the agents and the mob, and protecting informants from prosecution.  The government?s appeal challenges the District Court?s finding that ?claims that the court erred only in concluding that Connolly's leak of McIntyre's identity fell within the scope of his employment for the FBI, the prerequisite to liability against the United States under the FTCA.?  Specifically, ?In the terms of the multi-prong framework of Massachusetts law, the United States maintains that leaking McIntire's identity was neither the kind of conduct Connolly was hired to perform (prong one) nor motivated by a purpose to serve the FBI (prong three)?  The First says that the evidence showed that it was the ?custom? (that is, the way they fought the war on crime), and that the FBI really bent over backwards for them.  Some agents were not so pleased with this, but that doesn?t change the fact that the FBI was really going out of its way to help some bad people.

At the end there is some law on post-judgment interest.  The rate should be 5.1% and it ?runs from the date of filing of the transcript of the judgment with the Secretary of the Treasury through the day before the date of the mandate of affirmance.?  31 U.S.C. § 1304(b)(1)

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on October 16, 2008 (boomark / email).