We briefly noted the firm rejection of the DOJ's criminal prosecution of an in-house lawyer for what appears to us (and apparently appeared to the court) as ordinary lawyering. Now comes some reporting from Law.com (h/t: White Collar Crime Prof Blog) that, according to anonymous sources, the US Attorney for the USDC where the case was venued, Maryland, had refused to sign the indictment or have his name appear in the signature block because he felt that the evidence was insufficient. Wouldn't that eliminate the ability of the DOJ to claim that criticism of its behavior is mere hindsight?