DOJ Subpoenas Krasner's Office After Judge's Referral, Sources Tell Fox News
A federal judge in September referred Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner and a top deputy to federal prosecutors, finding they urged staff to give the court a false account in a murder case. Krasner calls the findings baseless. No one has been charged.
The Overview
The facts, straight
The Justice Department has sent grand jury subpoenas to Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner's office, according to two sources briefed on the subpoenas who spoke to Fox News. The sources told Fox that the subpoenas concern potential obstruction of justice in the handling of cases before federal judges, and that they followed a federal judge's referral of Krasner and a top deputy. The Justice Department declined to comment to Fox. The Washington Examiner and the New York Post each cited a single source confirming the subpoenas. Radio Purple has not independently confirmed them.
No one has been charged with a crime.
The judge's referral
The referral itself is on the public record. On Sept. 15, U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania disqualified Krasner and Matthew Stiegler, chief of the office's Conviction Integrity Unit, from a habeas case brought by Dennis Johnson. In a 40-page memorandum, Diamond wrote that the "credible evidence is tantamount to a prima facie showing of conduct that may constitute false statements, false declarations made under oath, perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy."
"I have thus reluctantly concluded that Philadelphia's highest law enforcement official and one of his top assistants may have violated the law," Diamond wrote. He referred "the DAO, Mr. Krasner, and Stiegler" to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia "for investigation and other appropriate action." He declined to disqualify the office as a whole.
The underlying case
A Philadelphia jury convicted Johnson in 2009 of second-degree murder, robbery and a firearms offense for the 2007 killing of Kenyatta Smith. In November 2022, the DA's office filed a brief conceding that Johnson was entitled to relief because of his trial lawyer's ineffectiveness. The brief was signed only by Assistant District Attorney Jaclyn Mason.
Diamond found that Stiegler had already decided to concede when he assigned Mason the case. Mason had been a prosecutor for about four months. She told the court Stiegler said, "if it's good enough for the Innocence Project, it's good enough for me."
After Diamond ordered an evidentiary hearing in May 2026, four Law Division supervisors (Katherine Ernst, Steven Wildberger, David Napiorski and Peter Andrews) signed a June 5 motion to withdraw the 2022 brief because it contained "material misstatements." That phrase is the office's own, from its withdrawal motion. Mason had resigned three days earlier.
What the judge found
Diamond credited the four supervisors' testimony. He found that Stiegler told Ernst that Mason "had purposefully inserted the false facts into the response," and that "this was one hundred percent her fault, zero percent his fault." According to the testimony Diamond credited, Krasner then told the four:
[S]omeone gave me a really good idea. Actually, it was Matt, Mr. Stiegler, that gave me this really good idea. I think that we should go through Ms. Mason's cases, find mistakes that she made in other cases, say that this was a pattern by her, and then file something with the Court saying that.
The supervisors rejected the idea and urged Krasner to send the case to the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office. Diamond found Krasner "very opposed," insisting someone from the office stay involved "to protect the office." He also found that when the supervisors said they had to alert the court, Krasner responded that "there would be consequences for Ms. Ernst if she alerted the Court to the conflict issue." Two supervisors took that as a threat to their jobs.
Diamond wrote that Stiegler's testimony was "often contradictory, evasive, or outright dishonest," and that Stiegler's account in court "may well amount to perjury." He said Krasner's "threat thus could amount to obstruction of justice," and that the two men's joint effort "might amount to criminal conspiracy." Krasner did not testify.
Krasner's response
Krasner rejects the findings. "I respectfully and vigorously disagree with the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law," he said in a statement after the ruling, as quoted by Fox. "I look forward to appealing to the higher court as soon as the law allows."
His office then asked Diamond to reconsider and to step aside from the case. On Oct. 14, Diamond denied both, calling the reconsideration motion "frivolous." As of Tuesday, the docket showed no notice of appeal. Johnson's petition itself is still pending, and the judge has ordered the parties to propose a briefing schedule on the merits.
What the Left Says
The progressive and Democratic case
Krasner's defense is in his court filings. In a declaration filed with the court, which Diamond noted was unsworn, he called the court's accusations and its "'referral' to the US Department of Justice" "virtually unprecedented" and "in fact, baseless." He argued that the findings "twist the truth to the point of breaking."
He also said the court's logic fails on its own terms. He asked whether "DAO personnel finding errors made by the DAO, disclosing them to the Court before anyone else does, and asking to correct them is somehow…a coverup?" and whether proposing to look "for additional errors not yet discovered to disclose and correct" is "somehow… obstructing justice?"
The office's reconsideration motion argued that the memorandum "repeatedly makes factual findings that are against the weight of the evidence." Both the motion and Krasner's declaration said a referral to the current Justice Department is political. The motion described Attorney General Todd Blanche as "the personal lawyer for President Donald J. Trump." Krasner's declaration argued that the department has been used against people the President sees as enemies, and noted that the referral came "on the eve of a historically important election."
The recusal motion argued that Diamond's questioning at the hearings "crossed into the role of an advocate against DA Krasner, ADA Matthew Stiegler, and the policies of the DAO."
Radio Purple did not find a named elected official outside the DA's office who defended Krasner on the record about the subpoena report Tuesday.
Where Reality Likely Sits
Radio Purple's analysis
Two things are documented: a federal judge found evidence that may amount to crimes and referred it to federal prosecutors, and Krasner disputes those findings and says he'll appeal. A referral is not a charge. Diamond himself wrote that the conduct "may" have violated the law, and only prosecutors can decide whether to bring a case.
The subpoenas are a separate question. They rest on anonymous sources, and neither the Justice Department nor Krasner's office has confirmed them publicly. Grand jury subpoenas are a routine investigative step. They don't mean charges will follow.
Krasner's filings and the judge's rulings agree on one point: the errors in the 2022 brief had to be corrected. The DA's office says that's what it was doing when it withdrew the brief. The judge found that Krasner and Stiegler urged staff to pin the blame on one prosecutor. A grand jury, an appeals court or both may end up deciding which account holds. Radio Purple will update this story with any responses from the DA's office and the Justice Department.
What the Right Says
The conservative and Republican case
Krasner's critics point to the record Diamond built from the testimony of Krasner's own senior prosecutors. The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office, which joined the case at the court's invitation, urged Diamond to disqualify both Krasner and the entire DA's office.
In his Oct. 14 memorandum, Diamond put the case in a broader context. He wrote that in the last two years, the Third Circuit, his court and the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court "have condemned as dishonest repeated post-trial concessions of relief made by the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office," and that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court now requires the state attorney general's review of such concessions.
Diamond also answered Krasner's charge of bias. "Four of the District Attorney's supervisors offered powerful, unrebutted testimony that their boss and Stiegler urged them to misrepresent to this Court," he wrote. "That the District Attorney chose not to testify but sought to 'make his case' with an unsworn declaration—the credibility of which I am unable to assess—makes that investigation even more necessary." Diamond was appointed by President George W. Bush.
Sources & Citations
- Fox News, “DOJ sends grand jury subpoenas to Philadelphia DA Krasner's office (exclusive; two sources briefed on the subpoenas)”, October 20, 2026.
- Washington Examiner, “Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner's office faces subpoenas after judicial referral (single-source confirmation)”, October 20, 2026.
- CourtListener, “Johnson v. Nickelson, No. 2:15-cv-04965 (E.D. Pa.), docket”, October 15, 2026.
- U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa., via CourtListener RECAP, “Memorandum (Doc. 173), Johnson v. Nickelson”, September 15, 2026.
- U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa., via CourtListener RECAP, “Order (Doc. 174), Johnson v. Nickelson”, September 15, 2026.
- U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa., via CourtListener RECAP, “DAO Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 176)”, September 29, 2026.
- U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa., via CourtListener RECAP, “Declaration of Larry Krasner (Doc. 176-1)”, September 29, 2026.
- U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa., via CourtListener RECAP, “DAO Motion for Recusal (Doc. 177)”, September 30, 2026.
- U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa., via CourtListener RECAP, “Memorandum (Doc. 184), Johnson v. Nickelson”, October 14, 2026.
- U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa., via CourtListener RECAP, “Order denying recusal and reconsideration (Doc. 185)”, October 14, 2026.
Positions above are attributed to the public statements and published reporting cited here. Quotations are taken from these sources; Radio Purple does not publish unattributed or invented quotes. See an error? Request a correction.
