In the opinion, Judge Posner notes: "We asked the government's lawyer at argument what an appropriate sanction for the prosecutor’s misconduct might be.... The government's appellate lawyer told us that the prosecutor's superior would give her a talking-to. We are not impressed by the suggestion."
So what will the government do to Ms. Sorensen? Nothing. What will the State Bar do to her? Nada. At least Google isn't so charitable.
Judge Posner identified the unethical prosecutor in the opinion, a rare thing. He waited until late in the opinion - at first making me think he was going to pull the usual, "the prosecutor" trick. Judges will write lengthy discussions of prosecutorial misconduct. Almost always, instead of using the prosector's name, the judge will protect the prosecutor by referring to the miscreat as "the prosecutor." This is a cover-up. It used to work.
In the age of PACER, the cover-up doesn't work. Motivated bloggers committed to justice can just pull up the docket sheet to find out whom the prosecutor was. Yet another reason PACER is the awesomeness.
Identifying Juliet Sorensen as the unethical prosecutor was valuable for two reasons. First, anyone - i.e., dinosaurs - who uses Westlaw to serach for her will realize she has no ethics. They'll know to watch out for her. Second, he prevented me from overpaying [sic] for PACER.
Thanks, Judge Posner.