Well, after a prosecutor has tried a case, defended it before the CCA on direct appeal and then on postconviction writ, it is difficult to accept that the case must be handed off to an entirely new set of lawyers who may or may not have your best interest in mind.

Let me say that the AG's federal postconviction litigation division has an excellent reputation and history of defending our cases. I'm just saying, it is an odd feeling to suddenly realize you have little input into the defense.

My office has had an excellent relationship with the current AG's office, receiving a copy of the federal writ and any subsequent briefs and orders as things move along. However, the AG's office can never have nearly as much knowledge or concern for the case as the office that tried it.

On a couple of prior occasions, other offices have sought to intervene in AG litigation. Only just a couple of years ago, one office sought to intervene when the AG decided to confess error.

That case was in the position of a direct appeal, but the decision to confess error was going to have tremendous consequences for other cases in federal postconvition litigation.

Anyway, I can understand that the intervention is unusual and possibly ill-advised, but I also can understand the former prosecutor's motive for vigorously pursuing a defense of the accusations.