Juliet Sorensen (born 1972/1973) [1] is an American lawyer. She is a clinical professor of law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and serves as the director of Loyola's Rule of Law Institute and Rule of Law for Development Program. [2] Previously, she was a member of the clinical faculty at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, where she was associated with its Center for International Human Rights. [3] [4]
Born to Theodore C. Sorensen, former special counsel to President John F. Kennedy, and Gillian M. Sorensen of the United Nations Foundation, [5] Sorensen graduated from Princeton University and Columbia Law School.
Between 1995 and 1997, Sorensen volunteered with the Peace Corps in Morocco. [6]
She served as assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago from 2003 to 2010. She prosecuted City of Chicago inspectors as part of Operation Crooked Code, a bribery investigation into the Chicago building and zoning departments. [7] [8] She prosecuted Jean-Marie Vianney ("Zuzu") Mudahinyuka, a leader of the Rwandan genocide, [9] in a case cited as a success of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement No Safe Haven initiative against human rights violators. [10]
In March 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in a unanimous panel opinion written by Judge Richard Posner, found that Sorensen had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and made "a series of improper statements" which the Court labeled "false and misleading." [11] In the trial court case of U.S. v. Farinella, which was appealed as 558 F.3d 695, [12] [13] a jury had found a Chicago businessman guilty of fraud and misbranding for relabeling 1.6 million bottles of salad dressing to extend their "best when purchased by" date, then reselling the bottles. [14] Posner found that although relabeling "best when purchased by" dates was not a crime, Sorensen's improper argument would have required reversal in any case. [15]
Sorensen married economist Benjamin Jones on August 19, 2000. [1]
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)theSeventhCircuitcalled the government's references to the labels as "expiration" statements to be itself "false and misleading, and is part of a pattern of improper argumentation in this litigation that does no credit to the Justice Department."