Saturday's NYT has a James Stewart column trying to understand (as many of us are) why the Dewey indictments included Zachary Warren, who worked at the firm (about five years ago) for two years after college and before going to law school (Georgetown). His mother is a law professor; his father is a retired California state court judge. He is now in the second of two federal clerkships. He has an offer from Williams & Connolly.
I've read what I take to be the main indictment, where Warren is barely mentioned. Stewart says there's a second indictment, which I haven't seen but will search for (or John Steele can post both here).
The mere fact of the indictment, of course, will in some measure derail Warren's personal and professional life, even if he is never convicted. I sure hope Cyrus Vance thought long and hard about this. Right now we can't know the basis for charges or the evidence the state will offer. We'll have to wait to see what emerges.
Stewart quotes Tom Curran, who worked in Robert Morgenthau's office, as highly skeptical:
“The whole thing is bizarre,” Mr. Curran said. “Why indict him twice? Why indict him at all? I can tell you that in Morgenthau’s office, a more measured approach would likely have prevailed. We’d have told him, ‘You’d better get a lawyer because the train is pulling out and you’re on the tracks.’ There must be a reason the district attorney proceeded against this young kid this way, and I and a lot of other people will be very interested to hear what it is.”
[by JJS: at Steven's invitation, I'm posting this link to our earlier coverage, including a link to what I had thought was the one and only indictment, but I will search for a second indictment.]