Troopergate Investigator Famously Disciplined

By
Friday, October 10, 2008 at 4:34 pm

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Should Gov. Sarah Palin be nervous about Steve Branchflower’s Troopergate report?

I just spoke with an Anchorage lawyer who has known Branchflower for about 20 years. The lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described Branchflower as “one of the most disciplined people I’ve ever encountered.”

Branchflower served as an assistant district attorney in Alaska for many years. He spent much of his career evaluating cases submitted by police and state troopers, determining whether the D.A.’s office would take them up. In that role, he made deals left and right, while staying focused on the case at hand, the Anchorage lawyer told me.

Over his long career, Branchflower also tried cases — including some high-profile murders.

Alaska trial observers say he is famous for winning the “quickest jury verdict ever.” Lore has it that the jury came back with a decision while the court exhibits were still being bundled.

Branchflower, who took the testimony of seven aides to Gov. Sarah Palin this week, after they initially resisted his attempts to interview them, still had his final report in on time today. No surprise there.

Branchflower prizes efficiency, according to the Anchorage lawyer:

He is the kind of guy who travels to Germany and cites his visit to either the Mercedes-Benz or BMW factory as the highlight (he drove one or the other) because the factory was so efficient.

It sounds like there is not a wasted word in his 236-page report.

Comments

2 Comments

RichardfromHB
Comment posted October 10, 2008 @ 6:34 pm

Sarah may have given Mr. Monegan a cause of action for damages for wrongful termination. It is enough to make out a case for Monegan if the refusal to terminate the trooper was a “substantial” or “motivating factor” in her descision to terminate him. Methlin v. Bartholomew (Alaska 1998) 971 P.2d 151 at page 154. And there are lots of similar cases.


RichardfromHB
Comment posted October 11, 2008 @ 1:34 am

Sarah may have given Mr. Monegan a cause of action for damages for wrongful termination. It is enough to make out a case for Monegan if the refusal to terminate the trooper was a “substantial” or “motivating factor” in her descision to terminate him. Methlin v. Bartholomew (Alaska 1998) 971 P.2d 151 at page 154. And there are lots of similar cases.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.