Attorney General John Ashcroft has done it again. At a news conference Thursday, Ashcroft commented on the credibility and value of a government witness in the ongoing Detroit terrorism trial, in which the Government has accused four men of being in a sleeper cell.

A federal judge said Friday he was "distressed" by Attorney General John Ashcroft's public praise of a key government witness at the trial of four men accused of acting as a "sleeper" terrorist cell....

"I was distressed to see the attorney general commenting in the middle of a trial about the credibility of a witness who had just gotten off the stand," Rosen said. Later, Rosen added, "The attorney general is subject to the orders of this court. ... The attorney general has specifically been put on notice about the scope of its gag order."

...At a news conference Thursday in Washington, Ashcroft called witness Youssef Hmimssa's cooperation "a critical tool" in efforts to combat terrorism. He said it should put potential terrorists on notice that there are informants among them. "His testimony has been of value, substantial value," Ashcroft said.

This is improper on a few levels. First, there is a gag order imposed on the parties in the case. Second, ethical rules prohibit prosecutors from giving their opinion on the quality of evidence in an ongoing case (see, for example, rules 3.6 and 3.8 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct ). The credibility of the Governement witness is a huge issue in the case.

Defense lawyers say Hmimssa is a liar who is trying to save himself from harsher punishment. Hmimssa, who arrived illegally in the United States in 1994, has admitted using aliases, engaging in document fraud and leading a credit card scheme that netted more than $180,000.

The Attorney General of the United States knows better than to comment on trial evidence at a press conference. It's the second time he has violated the gag order in the case, according to defense counsel. The Judge may make Ashcroft explain himself after the trial. That hardly helps the defendants overcome the prejudice caused by his comments if one of the jurors saw the conference or had his comments repeated to him or her. Jurors weigh the credibility of witnesses and strength of evidence, not proseuctors.