What does an AG who fights to maintain a conviction based solely on perjured testimony deserve?

[Faryn Balyncd]

Everyone in Virginia's criminal justice system knew that Johnathan Christopher Montgomery was innocent of the crimes for which he’d been convicted.

His accuser had recanted her testimony and admitted she lied to police about being molested by Montgomery more than a dozen years earlier. And yet the state continued to deny him his freedom until an advocacy organization for the wrongly convicted petitioned for his release. Finally, on November 20, 2012, more than four years after he was sent to prison for aggravated sexual battery and lesser charges – and two days before Thanksgiving –Montgomery was conditionally pardoned by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and walked out of the Greensville Correctional Center. . . .

In early November 2012, Hampton Circuit Court Judge Randolph T. West threw out Montgomery’s convictions and ordered his release from prison. But Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli argued that West lacked jurisdiction due to a state law that prohibits judges from considering new evidence, other than DNA evidence, more than 21 days after sentencing. Cuccinelli declared the release order invalid and kept Montgomery imprisoned in spite of Coast’s recantation.

It was only after the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project (MAIP) filed a clemency petition for Montgomery that Governor McDonnell – less than 24 hours later – issued a conditional pardon and Montgomery was set free.



http://prisonlawblog.com/blog/2013/8/22/virginia-prisoner-pardoned-after-accuser-admits-she-lied#.UrL16-IQSU5

The person who voluntarily came forward, recanted her perjury, and testified that what began as a false accusation made by a panicked teen to her mother, who caught her reading pornography (and demanded an explanation, suggesting prior molestation might be the cause), and eventually spiraled into her giving perjured testimony rather than face the embarrassment of telling the truth has been sentenced.

But what of the Attorney General who, despite her recantation, fought to maintain the incarceration of a man everybody, including Cuccinelli himself, was innocent?

What does an Attorney General who believes that it is his duty to maintain procedures that make it more difficult for convicted felons (innocent or otherwise) to have new evidence considered, (but that it is NOT the duty of the Attorney General to seek justice for those convicted in a miscarriage of justice) deserve?

Thoughts?