Urick Handpicking Benaroya was was improper (as described in Urick 2)

It is common for a prosecution witness to need a defense lawyer. The protocol - in my jurisdiction and I think universally - is to contact the local public defenders' office, or conflict panel, and ask that a defense attorney be assigned. The prosecutor cannot hand pick.

Reasons:

-Not fair to the witness. The prosecutor could be looking to sink the witness - Witness should have independent representation

-Steering. I work for a government law firm. We are often asked to recommend attorneys. We aren't allowed because we are not allowed to steer business to a particular party.

-Impropriety, and the "appearance of impropriety". Urick's conduct fails on both counts. If he were in my jurisdiction there would be ample basis to bring him up on ethics charges that could result in a sanction or disbarment.

I'm genuinely shocked - at the act itself, and at the brazen, callous manner he tossed it off to The Intercept.

Here's the quote:

At that time, I had a case with Anne Benaroya. [...] I told her about Jay. I said, ‘Can you think of any place I can tell this guy to go, because he wants representation. He’s not comfortable talking to the state without someone advising him about what’s best for him.’ Prosecutors can’t advise a criminal defendant what’s in their best interest. They need independent counsel. She volunteered to talk to Jay to tell him his options of where he could go for representation. So I told Jay, there is this attorney who was willing to talk with him about that, and I asked would he like to meet with her? He said yes. Anne met with him. She came back to us and said basically that she found him a meritorious person who needed representation, and she was going to volunteer to handle it, which I think was admirable, commendable, and that’s what attorneys should do.

Damn that's wrong.

(readability edits)