<p>A federal judge referred Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner to federal prosecutors on September 15, 2026, after determining that he and a senior assistant may have violated the law while attempting to conceal their office's support for overturning a murder conviction.</p>
<p>U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond disqualified Krasner and Assistant District Attorney Matthew Stiegler from participating in the case, stating that their personal interests conflicted with their duties as prosecutors. Krasner, a Democrat, has faced criticism from various quarters, including former President Donald Trump and state Republicans, who have accused his office of adopting lenient crime policies.</p>
<p>In his 40-page memorandum, Diamond wrote, “I have thus reluctantly concluded that Philadelphia’s highest law enforcement official and one of his top assistants may have violated the law.” He referred Krasner, Stiegler, and the District Attorney's Office to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for investigation and potential action.</p>
<p>Diamond identified possible offenses such as false statements, perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. The referral does not imply that criminal charges have been filed or that an investigation has commenced.</p>
<p>The case involves Dennis Johnson, who was convicted in 2009 of second-degree murder, robbery, and a firearms offense in the killing of Kenyatta Smith. Johnson sought federal relief in 2015, later amending his petition with recanted testimony and statements implicating another individual. Krasner's office supported the overturning of Johnson's conviction in November 2022, arguing that Johnson's trial attorney was ineffective.</p>
<p>A magistrate judge recommended granting relief in 2023, and Diamond scheduled an evidentiary hearing for May 2026, inviting the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office to participate. The District Attorney's Office then attempted to withdraw its position, citing “material misstatements” in its filing.</p>
<p>Diamond found that Stiegler had decided to support relief before assigning the case to then-Assistant District Attorney Jaclyn Mason, who prepared the filing without conducting an independent investigation. The judge also noted that Stiegler proposed blaming Mason for the errors and portraying her as a rogue prosecutor, a proposal that Krasner supported.</p>
<p>Diamond stated, “Mr. Krasner did not simply learn of the Stiegler proposal; he urged the Law Division supervisors … to implement it and to present a false narrative to the Court.” The supervisors resisted and suggested transferring the case to the attorney general’s office, but Diamond found that Krasner insisted on retaining involvement to “protect the office” and threatened “consequences” if the prosecutors alerted the court to the conflicts.</p>
<p>Diamond deferred a decision on Johnson’s petition, allowing the District Attorney’s Office to remain involved under the condition that another prosecutor be appointed and supervised independently of Krasner.</p>
<p>Krasner has faced longstanding criticism from Republicans, who attribute rising violence in Philadelphia to his prosecution policies. In 2022, he was impeached by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, but the Senate trial was delayed and ultimately declared null and void by the state Supreme Court.</p>
<p>In 2024, Krasner sued Tesla CEO Elon Musk over a $1 million giveaway for voter registration, which resulted in a judge denying his request to halt the giveaways.</p>
<p>Abhishek Kambli, a former attorney in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, expressed surprise at the disqualification and referral, stating, “I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen a federal judge not only disqualify the DA from participating in a habeas case but referring him for investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”</p>
<p>Kambli added, “And keep in mind this is all in the context of making false statements to let murderers out of jail. Safe to say the people of Philadelphia deserve better than this.”</p>
<p>Krasner responded to the ruling, stating, “I respectfully and vigorously disagree with the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. I look forward to appealing to the higher court as soon as the law allows.”</p>
<p>The Washington Examiner contacted the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for a response.</p>