Althouse: "We admit we made a gross error, Your Honor," says the prosecutor in the trial of Senator Ted Stevens.

October 2, 2008

"We admit we made a gross error, Your Honor," says the prosecutor in the trial of Senator Ted Stevens.

And the judge may dismiss the indictment or declare a mistrial.

18 comments:

goesh said...: -just great, the A team fumbles on first down....; 10/2/08, 12:50 PM
miller said...: It's Palin's fault.; 10/2/08, 12:56 PM
Fred4Pres said...: Miller, nice one.

And if there are U.S. Attorneys prosecuting this thing, shouldn't someone get fired?

Oh wait, you can't fire U.S. Attorneys. Or is that judges? I guess the Dems will relent when it comes to botching a case against a Republican.; 10/2/08, 1:09 PM
MadisonMan said...: Feds don't get fired for incompetence.; 10/2/08, 1:11 PM
vnjagvet said...: It is not incompetence, MM. It is totally unprofessional, unethical, and sanctionable. I would dismiss the case were I the Judge, and fire the Trial Attorneys if I were the US Attorney.

I expect better from Justice Department lawyers.; 10/2/08, 1:20 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: "Ooops."

In other news, DOJ Imspector General releases report detailing widespread partisan abuses at Department of Justice. Media buries story.

I'm sure this is unrelated. (And the prosecutor's relatives will soon be released.)

Here's the link to the report. Not that Althouse would cover something unflattering to Republicans.; 10/2/08, 1:27 PM
The Drill SGT said...: This isn't being done by a USA, it's done out of The Public Integrity Section which oversees the federal effort to combat corruption through the prosecution of elected and appointed public officials at all levels of government.

do these guys are at headquarters and supposed to be good. Among sounds like a Nifong thing.

well judge, you caught us at it, but the trial wasn't over yet, so no harm, no foul, let's move along, nothing more to see here.../sarc off

I'd sanction the attorney's, really hate for the trail to go away though, cause I think Steven's is overall a crook, though I don't see how they can prove it in this case, given that:

- Steven's asked for the bill
- steve's paid all bills presented
- gov hid the fact that the chief witness says steven's would have paid all the bills if they had been sent
- steven's wasn't overseeing the work, so had no direct knowledge of how much labor went into it, etc; 10/2/08, 1:32 PM
Triangle Man said...: Drill SGT,

Something that wasn't completely clear from the article, is how much of the work that was done would have been included in the bill he requested.

He asked for a bill for "the deck", but there seem to be two decks, a second story, and a garage that all may be in question. Over all they did pay a lot of money for renovations ($160,000), but it looks like there was an additional $188,000 not accounted for.

It could be that his request for a bill was an honest attempt to make good on what he owed, but CYA is possible.

How can the prosecutors have bungled this? Did they honestly not have their act together and just get behind in sending the evidence to the defense? Did they think they could delay and get away with it?; 10/2/08, 1:46 PM
Alex said...: Stevens has utter contempt for our republic and the rule of law. I don't care if it costs $150 million to convict.; 10/2/08, 1:51 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: "It's a series of TUBES!"; 10/2/08, 2:18 PM
David said...: How can the judge award a mistrial? A mistrial gives the government its objective, which is to prevent the Senator's reelection.

The whole notion of a mistrial when you are opposing the government is out of whack. Government prosecutors grind the defendants down with superior and free (to the prosecutors) resources. A mistrial only increases the government's resource advantage.

Judges must start dismissing with prejudice in the case of prosecutor misconduct. This is the only way to punish it properly.; 10/2/08, 2:55 PM
Godot said...: Alex said:
I don't care if it costs $150 million to convict.

How 'bout $700 billion?; 10/2/08, 2:56 PM
Sofa King said...: "It's a series of TUBES!"

Well...it is, actually...; 10/2/08, 2:59 PM
Jim said...: Stevens is corrupt, but bad cases make for bad law.

It seems to me that the government tried to hide exculpatory evidence that pretty much punches a complete hole through the entire case. Unless there's more than meets the eye, it would seem to pretty much a slam dunk to dismiss the case entirely.

If I were the judge, I'd definitely severely sanction the prosecutors as well.; 10/2/08, 3:27 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Prosecutors botch a case, commit procedural and ethical errors and a little skulduggery, and the judge can rule one of two ways which only benefits the defendant; who has most of the rights.

Sounds like the justice system still works. Of course that may change if the progressives get in. They would just disappear the judge and get a "friendlier comrad to do their dirty work.; 10/2/08, 3:31 PM
ic said...: What is the difference between Ted Stevens not paying his remodelling bills and Joe Biden selling his shack to a contributor above market and buying a piece of land from said contributor at cost, and using his campaign funds for private use?

Both are crooks, one is a Republican, the other might be a heart beat away from the presidency.; 10/2/08, 4:55 PM
Cedarford said...: It looks pretty bad for the career prosecutors of "public Integrity" if their own integrity is compromised concealing exculpatory evidence because they, a la Mike Nifong, "know the bastards are guilty!"
Brenda Morris, lead prosecutor, JD Howard University, was accused of some of the same in past cases she prosecuted..like Abramoff.

The other day, after Paul Newman died, I caught "Absence of Malice" and as I hadn't seen it since college, loved the can of whoopass Wilfred Brimely's "Good 'Ol Boy" character unleashed at Elliot Rosen, ambitious Fed Prosecutor.

James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase.

James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: What'd you figure you'd do after government service, Elliott?
Elliott Rosen: I'm not quitting.
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: You ain't no Presidential appointee, Elliott. One that hired you is me. You got thirty days

Newman's character Michael Gallager:Everybody in this room is smart. Everybody's just doing their job. And Teresa Perrone's dead. Who do I see about that?
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: I wish I could tell yuh. I honestly wish I could.; 10/2/08, 4:57 PM
The Drill SGT said...: C4,

I was pushing Absence of Malice last week on the newman thread. Brimley was great.

but he not only dumped on the US Attorney. after all it is a First amdendment case, so there were zingers at the MSM as well.

and the wonderful suepeenie segment. great thing, suepeenie's "); 10/2/08, 7:01 PM