Prosecutorial misconduct or just standard operating procedures in Senator Stevens' prosecution?

As previously noted in this post, right after Senator Ted Stevens was convicted earlier this week on seven felony counts of lying on his Senate disclosure forms, his lawyer Brendan Sullivan sent this letter of complaint to Attorney General Michael Mukasey detailing purported incidents of prosecutorial misconduct in Stevens' prosecution.  The letter is a fascinating read, and some of the allegations are very troubling (such as the assertion that federal prosecutors knowingly presented false testimony).  But one allegation really stood out because it calls "misconduct" some behavior I have long considered just standard prosecutorial operating procedures.

Specifically, the letter's last major allegation of a "serious constitutional violation" concerns the "prosecution's use of coercive promises and extravagant financial incentives to Mr. Allen in order to induce [his] 'substantial assistance'."  The letter goes on to detail that, in order to get the help of key witness Bill Allen, federal prosecutors promised not to prosecute other members of Allen's family and also made it easier for him to sell his business for millions of dollars. 

Even assuming these allegations are true, they barely seem different in degree than the kinds of cooperation inducements that federal (and state) prosecutors make all the time.  Indeed, often prosecutors will promise immunity not only to others, but to the cooperator himself.  (This fact is one of many reasons why the Border Agents' case has generate controversy: the federal prosecutor offered complete immunity to a Mexican drug smuggler in order to get him to testify against the Border Agents.)

Though the letter from Stevens' lawyer repeatedly describes the promises made to Bill Allen to secure his cooperation as "coercive," the behavior by prosecutors here strike me as well within the pale and essentially just a variation of standard operating procedure for securing cooperation in these kinds of cases.  Of course, I fully understand why Senator Stevens' lawyers are troubled by the incentives offered to Allen to encourage him to assist in the prosecution.  But if the inducements offered in this case constitute "prosecutorial misconduct," a whole lot of defendants now sitting in federal (and state) prisons who were convicted based on a cooperator testimony should start contacting habeas lawyers about the opportunity to raise a potent new collateral challenge to their convictions.

Some recent related posts:

• Senator Stevens convicted on all counts
• Some sentencing questions after Senator Stevens conviction
• How should (and will) Senator Stevens' political past and future impact his sentencing?
• Senator Ted Stevens not (yet) disenfranchised
• Will Senator Stevens pay at sentencing for election-related comments?