Federal Judge Refers Philadelphia DA Krasner To DOJ Probe

Checklist:

• Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner and a top deputy were referred to the Justice Department.
• A federal judge pointed to possible criminal conduct tied to a murder conviction case.
• The case centers on accusations involving false statements, perjury, obstruction, and conspiracy.
• The judge removed Krasner and his deputy from the case but did not disqualify the whole office.
• The dispute traces back to the Dennis Johnson conviction and later habeas questions.
• Krasner rejected the judge’s findings and said an appeal is coming.

A federal judge has kicked a major Philadelphia law-enforcement dispute into the Justice Department’s lap, referring District Attorney Larry Krasner and top deputy Matthew Stiegler for possible criminal investigation. The move came after the judge said the record in a murder conviction case pointed to conduct that may have crossed a serious legal line.

U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said the evidence could support allegations of false statements, perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. Neither Krasner nor Stiegler has been charged, but the referral alone puts a hard spotlight on how the office handled the case and whether courtroom pressure was used behind the scenes.

The dispute grew out of the case of Dennis Johnson, who was convicted in 2009 of killing Kenyatta Smith. In a 2022 filing, the district attorney’s office said Johnson should get habeas relief because his defense lawyer had been ineffective, which opened the door to a deeper review of how the case had been handled.

Things got messier after prosecutors flagged possible conflicts involving Stiegler and pushed for the matter to be sent to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office. According to the opinion, Krasner resisted that idea and insisted someone from his office needed to stay involved to help “protect the office.”

Diamond did not stop at the referral. He also disqualified Krasner and Stiegler from the case itself, while declining to take the much broader step of removing the entire district attorney’s office. That split decision suggests the judge saw the problem as serious, but not contagious enough to wipe out the whole office’s role.

The judge said Krasner and Stiegler appeared to try to pressure prosecutors into presenting a false version of events to the court. He also said Krasner warned of “consequences” if staff members alerted the court to an internal conflict, language that made the judge’s concern unmistakable.

“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. It is the kind of line that doesn’t get tossed out casually, especially from a federal judge dealing with a high-stakes criminal record and a public prosecutor’s office.

Krasner pushed back fast, saying, “I respectfully and vigorously disagree with the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law,” and adding, “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 statement made clear the fight is nowhere near over, and the legal battles around the office’s conduct are still very much alive.

The case has also kept attention on Krasner’s broader role in Philadelphia, where his office has faced repeated scrutiny over how it handles prosecutions and post-conviction fights. With the Justice Department now brought into the picture, the pressure around this already ugly dispute is only getting sharper.