Soros-Backed Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner Hit With Federal Grand Jury Subpoenas After Judge Raises Criminal Misconduct Concerns

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner is facing a growing federal investigation after the Justice Department issued grand jury subpoenas to his office following allegations that the progressive prosecutor and a top deputy attempted to pressure employees into misleading a federal judge.

The subpoenas were issued in recent days as federal authorities examine potential obstruction of justice, perjury, false statements and conspiracy connected to the handling of a convicted murderer’s appeal.

The development represents a serious legal challenge for Krasner, the three-term Democratic district attorney whose political career received substantial financial backing from billionaire liberal donor George Soros.

According to sources familiar with the investigation, the subpoenas followed a September referral from U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond, who raised concerns about the conduct of Krasner and Matthew Stiegler, a senior official in the district attorney’s office.

Diamond concluded that evidence presented during hearings suggested the two officials may have attempted to influence prosecutors’ testimony and conceal internal conflicts from the court.

“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 in his September 15 memorandum.

The judge referred Krasner, Stiegler and the district attorney’s office to federal prosecutors for investigation and any appropriate action.

Neither Krasner nor Stiegler has been criminally charged, and the issuance of subpoenas does not establish that either committed a crime.

The controversy stems from a murder case involving Dennis Johnson, who was convicted in 2009 of killing Kenyatta Smith during a botched robbery in Philadelphia two years earlier.

Johnson subsequently challenged his conviction, arguing that he had received ineffective legal representation.

In November 2022, Krasner’s office filed a petition supporting Johnson’s request for federal habeas relief, a legal procedure that can allow a prisoner to challenge the legality of a conviction or sentence.

The filing represented a significant concession by prosecutors because it supported reconsideration of a murder conviction previously secured by the government.

However, the case took an unexpected turn in 2026 when prosecutors inside Krasner’s office began questioning the accuracy of representations made in the earlier filing.

In June, the district attorney’s office sought to withdraw its support for Johnson’s petition, citing material misstatements.

That reversal triggered disagreements over who was responsible for the disputed information and whether the office could continue handling the case without conflicts of interest.

Former Assistant District Attorney Jaclyn Mason, who had worked on the original petition, became a central figure in the dispute.

Krasner and Stiegler allegedly attempted to place responsibility for the problematic filing on Mason, who had resigned from the office.

Other prosecutors raised concerns about that explanation and questioned whether senior officials were attempting to protect themselves from scrutiny.

Two prosecutors, Katherine Ernst and Steven Wildberger, urged Krasner to transfer responsibility for the case to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office.

They argued that internal conflicts made it inappropriate for the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office to continue representing the government in the proceedings.

According to testimony and court documents, Krasner strongly opposed transferring the matter to state prosecutors.

One prosecutor testified that Krasner objected to involving the attorney general’s office because he considered its officials hostile to his administration.

The district attorney also reportedly insisted that someone from his office remain involved in the courtroom to protect the institution’s interests.

Those discussions became particularly significant when prosecutors alleged that Krasner warned employees there would be consequences if they disclosed certain internal conflicts to the judge.

Ernst and Wildberger ultimately notified the federal court about their concerns despite the reported warning.

Their actions exposed serious disagreements inside the district attorney’s office and prompted additional judicial scrutiny.

Judge Diamond subsequently held hearings examining the handling of Johnson’s petition and the conduct of prosecutors involved in the case.

The testimony raised questions about whether senior officials had attempted to influence what employees told the court.

Diamond expressed concern that Krasner and Stiegler may have sought to pressure prosecutors into presenting a misleading account of the office’s conduct.

The judge identified potential violations involving obstruction of justice and other federal offenses, prompting his decision to refer the matter for criminal investigation.

Diamond also disqualified Krasner and Stiegler from further participation in Johnson’s case.

However, he declined to remove the entire Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, allowing other prosecutors to potentially continue handling the proceedings.

The latest federal grand jury subpoenas indicate that investigators are now seeking information connected to the allegations.

It remains unclear whether Krasner and Stiegler personally received subpoenas or whether the requests were directed exclusively to records and personnel within the district attorney’s office.

The Justice Department has declined to comment publicly on the investigation.

Krasner’s representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment following Tuesday’s reports.

The district attorney previously rejected the judge’s findings and defended his handling of the case.

“I respectfully and vigorously disagree with the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law,” Krasner said after the September referral.

He also indicated that he intended to challenge the ruling through the appellate process.

The controversy has already contributed to significant personnel turmoil inside the district attorney’s office.

Earlier this month, Ernst and Wildberger resigned after accusing Krasner of making inaccurate statements about them in court filings.

The prosecutors argued that his handling of the dispute made it impossible for them to continue working in the office.

Their departures added to the questions surrounding the internal management of the Johnson case and the district attorney’s response to concerns raised by his own employees.

Krasner’s political background has also drawn renewed attention as the federal investigation proceeds.

First elected in 2017, Krasner became one of the country’s most prominent progressive prosecutors after campaigning on promises to reform criminal justice policies.

His original campaign benefited from nearly $1.7 million in support from a political action committee funded by George Soros.

Krasner has since pursued policies involving reduced incarceration, reconsideration of past convictions and changes to traditional prosecution practices.

His approach has frequently generated disagreements with law enforcement organizations and political opponents who question the consequences of his criminal justice policies.

The current federal inquiry, however, concerns specific allegations about his conduct in court proceedings rather than the merits of his broader political agenda.

At issue is whether the city’s chief prosecutor and a senior deputy improperly attempted to influence employees, conceal conflicts or mislead a federal judge during litigation involving a murder conviction.

Those allegations carry particular significance because prosecutors have an obligation to provide truthful information to courts and disclose conflicts that could affect the administration of justice.

The investigation remains in its early publicly reported stages, and federal authorities have not announced whether they intend to pursue criminal charges.

For Krasner, the immediate concern is that a judicial referral has now been followed by grand jury subpoenas, indicating additional federal scrutiny of his office’s conduct.

The outcome will depend on what investigators establish about the disputed filings, internal communications and testimony surrounding Johnson’s appeal.

Until then, Krasner remains Philadelphia’s district attorney while federal prosecutors examine whether the conduct identified by Judge Diamond warrants criminal prosecution.