Senator Stevens to go free.

[SpencerH]

A technical question, since Stevens was convicted by a jury but the Federal Judge did not yet impose a sentence (apparently because of the prosecutorial misdeeds that he was already aware of), what is Stevens legal status? Is he technically guilty but the case will be dismissed, or is it a mistrial in which case he remains innocent?

[Patroklos]

Apparently the verdict is void.

[SpencerH]

If thats true, and I'm not assuming its not, then he remains "innocent". I sincerely hope he brings a civil suit against the government. Such misuse of federal power cant be allowed to fade into obscurity.

[Patroklos]

If thats true, and I'm not assuming its not, then he remains "innocent".

Technically. The prosecutors would have you believe they are not going for a retrial because of lack of evidence, but rather because he is so old and already out of office it is a waste of their time.

I think thats BS and they simply don't have a case, but thats what they say. Not to say he isn't corrupt, but knowing he is and proving he is are completely different matters.

[Lefty Scaevola]

The prosecutorial misconduct here involved stonewalling orders to turn over evidence that indicated cooked testimony and perjury on the part of a key witness, so make you conclusions about that. The lead prosecutor in the case, Brenda Morris, now has two sets of district judges gunning for her, the other from San Antonio TX. She had a tax fraud prosecution flop here a few years ago, amid accusations of, wait for it, cooked testimony and perjury on the part of the key witness. After finding by the court of "reckless disregard for the truth", the government lost a judgement for $1.34 million in attorney's fees to the defendant. The judge her has been after her scalp since then.

[Lefty Scaevola]

what is Stevens legal status? Is he technically guilty but the case will be dismissed,

Since I believe a remand order (for new trial) has now been entered at the appeals court, the conviction is reversed and his current status is an unconvicted defendant. When the dismissal at the trial court is entered, he will be free, not guilty, and protected by double jeopardy.

[SpencerH]

Thanks

[Arrian]

The prosecutorial misconduct here involved stonewalling orders to turn over evidence that indicated cooked testimony and perjury on the part of a key witness, so make you conclusions about that. The lead prosecutor in the case, Brenda Morris, now has two sets of district judges gunning for her, the other from San Antonio TX. She had a tax fraud prosecution flop here a few years ago, amid accusations of, wait for it, cooked testimony and perjury on the part of the key witness. After finding by the court of "reckless disregard for the truth", the government lost a judgement for $1.34 million in attorney's fees to the defendant. The judge her has been after her scalp since then.

I hope he gets that scalp.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

Yes, but usually, the prosecutors get away with it. Because of Stevens stature, if they'd kept silent and it had popped up during his appeals, you know there'd be hell to pay.

What I'm curious about is why a Bush prosecutor did this.

I think you'll find that defense attorneys get away with far more, far more frequently. There are plenty of honest prosecutors out there, and they're regularly screwed by defense attorneys conveniently forgetting that they have to abide by the rules of evidence, etc., too...

[Ramo]

The prosecution has law enforcement and other levers of the state at its power. They're likely to come up with the bulk of the evidence. Assuming that both sides get away with breaking rules regarding evidence at an equal rate, that amounts to a huge bias against the defense.

[snoopy369]

Your assumption, however, is massively flawed.

[Ramo]

Is there some way you can substantiate that?

[snoopy369]

No more than you can My parents are attorneys, one a prosecutor, one not; both complain quite frequently about misconduct on the other side, of course, but the problem is that the defense gets away with it because there aren't really any penalties for it unless it's bad enough to get someone disbarred. If a defense attorney doesn't do something he's supposed to, a not guilty verdict doesn't get overturned, after all. They (generally) don't even report to anyone that would meaningfully discipline them... and the attorneys who are best at it, get more clients, because they get a name for doing whatever it takes to get you off.

Prosecutorial misconduct, on the other hand, not only is significantly punished [at minimum, stuff like this, where the case is reversed; and the attorney, being an employee of the state, could easily lose his/her job], but is investigated by the same state that you would blame for abusing its power. Attorney generals (and even district attorneys) aggressively investigate prosecutorial misconduct. It's found and cut out wherever they can; there's a reason that after ONE charge of misconduct, this attorney left and went clear across the country, presumably to somewhere that they hadn't heard of the misconduct charge...

[Berzerker]

For whom?

for Stevens

[Berzerker]

What I'm curious about is why a Bush prosecutor did this.

throwing the fight