Justice Department Subpoenas Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner Following Federal Judge’s Criminal Referral
The United States Department of Justice has issued grand jury subpoenas to the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, directing inquiries toward District Attorney Larry Krasner and his administration. The federal subpoenas stem directly from a recent judicial referral that called for a possible criminal investigation into Krasner and a top deputy regarding their conduct in a high-profile murder conviction challenge.
Two sources briefed on the subpoenas confirmed the development, indicating that the federal grand jury is examining potential obstruction of justice and related offenses linked to how the District Attorney’s office managed cases before federal courts. Neither Krasner nor his deputy has been charged with any crime.
The federal scrutiny follows an order issued by U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond, who disqualified Krasner and Conviction Integrity Unit Chief Matthew Stiegler from participating further in the case of Dennis Johnson. Johnson is currently contesting his 2009 conviction for second-degree murder, robbery, and firearms offenses stemming from the 2007 killing of Kenyatta Smith.
In his ruling, Judge Diamond concluded that both Krasner and Stiegler acted to safeguard their own interests and the institutional reputation of the prosecutor’s office rather than upholding their duties to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The judge formally referred both officials to federal prosecutors for potential criminal investigation, pointing to credible evidence of conduct that could violate federal statutes concerning false statements, false declarations under oath, perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy.
The court record details that the judge’s findings relied heavily on testimony from multiple internal supervisors within the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office. Witnesses testified that during internal deliberations in the spring and summer, Krasner and Stiegler attempted to deflect blame for legal errors contained in a concession brief submitted in the Johnson case. Testifying supervisors stated that Krasner pressured staff to shield the office from outside scrutiny, discouraged thorough internal investigations into the mistakes, and urged that a representative remain tethered to the litigation to protect the agency’s public standing.
The internal dispute created severe friction within the prosecutor’s office. Several attorneys and supervisors raised alarms over disabling conflicts of interest, with some ultimately resigning or withdrawing from the case after feeling pressured to absorb the blame for filing errors or compromise their professional standing. Testimony alleged that leadership resisted suggestions to refer the matter to the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General or launch an independent inquiry.
Despite disqualifying Krasner and Stiegler from the proceedings, Judge Diamond declined to bar the entire Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office from the case. Instead, the court ruled that the office could continue its involvement in the Johnson matter, provided it operates under new, independent supervision that excludes the two disqualified officials.
District Attorney Krasner issued a public statement sharply contesting the court’s determinations. “I respectfully and vigorously disagree with the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law,” Krasner said, adding that he intends to appeal the decision to a higher court as soon as permitted. He noted that the ongoing nature of the legal proceedings limits his ability to address the matter further in public statements.
