In practice, this means that even defendants who are probably innocent must endure the anguish of trial. I once represented a young man in a gang murder case who had been arrested and indicted along with eight other people, even though his name was never mentioned in the grand jury testimony. Although it seemed clear that the police had mistaken this young man for his brother, both the prosecutors and the judge told me to “put it on,” meaning go to trial; the client sat in court for several days, in jeopardy of a lengthy prison term, before the case against him was finally dismissed.
August 28, 2011
"In trying to talk prosecutors out of weak cases, I have been told more than once, 'I wasn’t there, man, and neither were you. Let the 12 of them figure it out.'"
Writes Scott Turow (in an op-ed about Dominique Strauss-Kahn):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
82 comments:
Even right-wingers can be frightened by the ability of prosecutors to wreck the lives of innocent people...
In civil cases, there is an action for malicious use of process but I suppose the prosecutors have immunity.
""In trying to talk prosecutors out of weak cases, I have been told more than once, 'I wasn’t there, man, and neither were you. Let the 12 of them figure it out.'""
If the prosecutor can't be talked out of cases like this, the DA is getting too much funding.
That was one of the huge problems with Federal special prosecutors - being pursued by someone with an unlimited budget, who doesn't have to pick and choose what cases to prosecute on a limited budget.
Pretty typical for the legal profession, IMHO. They have a well known practice of slapping everyone with a malpractice suit whose name appears in a patient chart - whether they were involved in the alleged malpractice or not. They have no regard for the damage they do to people by hauling them into court. And they answer to no one but themselves.
Classic problem in modern society: often bureaucrats don't have the spine to do the right thing.
Turow, nice job separating reputation damage done from arrest and that from prosecution. Fair criticisms by Turow of Vance. And finally a passing grade for Vance.
Turow - “Ethical rules prohibit lawyers from calling a witness whose testimony they know to be false; but the rule is not the same when the testimony is possibly true but dubious.”
I confess my bias of elevating empirical legal studies to the status of god – over political biases often expressed here at this blog in the mix of fun and serious banter. It’s just that the unavoidable bias and the inevitable errors of qualitative judgments on the confused line between “possibly true but dubious” and “know[n] to be false” really aren’t easily quantifiable. The world’s askew. There’s no evading personal judgments by prosecutors. I don’t know whether I’m glad or sad this didn’t go to court. Alas. ~ Jim
Well Michael K, the malicious use sanctions for civil cases have been on the endangered species list for some time!
A good prosecutor doesn't pull that horseshit. Unfortunately, there are two few good ones.
There is a vast difference between proceeding to trial with a defendant that the prosecutor knows to be very probably innocent, and the case where the prosecutor is not sure one way or the other and where the complaining witness' testimony is itself sufficent to withstand a motion for a directed verdict.
Here, the prosecutors did NOT know that the defendant was innocent. Rather, they knew that there was more than reasonable suspicion, more than probable cause. There was enough to convict if the accuser's testimony were believed.
Is it reasonably possible that she is telling the truth? especially given that others are accusing the defendant of similar sexual wrongdoing? YES.
This case was one for THE JURY to decide.
Please take into consideration the TIME LINE. And, the fact that the maid's powerless. And, that you've seen the press kill Nixon. And, pull things any which way they want.
Meanwhile, OVER AT THE SOFITEL ... In the semen-soaked suite ... The maid is seen by her supervisor. And, then by MANAGEMENT.
What would be "truly funny" is that if they made their calls to Paris on DSK's missing cell phone!
And, somehow a GREEN LIGHT is given.
DSK is arrested ... in full press mode ... at about 4:00 PM. While the maid? She's at the hospital for a time. Getting her vagina photographed. And, she tells the story over and over, again.
Poor woman doesn't get home till 3:00 AM?
Oh, and she's wearing TWO PAIRS of pantyhose. One on top of the other. This confuses all the police, and half the medical staff ... who do not check her ankles for bedbug bites.
We're "told" the maid's a muslim woman. So the two pairs of pantyhose is to ward off "whatever."
While it's 3:00 AM when this ILLITERATE WOMAN GETS HOME! HELLO.
Were the police hoping she wouldn't read about the arrest?
At 3:00 AM she goes to sleep. And, wakes up at 7:00 AM with every intention of going back to work.
When she flips on her TV. (As lots of Americans do. Just after they wake up.) And, she recognizes the guy who assaulted her!
You know, the maid didn't know his name! But the cops did! Because MANAGEMENT told them.
Her reaction was to FEAR FOR HER LIFE!
Linda Tripp told the same thing to Monica! Death by CIA ain't so unusual, you know?
But the maid, in terror, goes to her community. Where some of the men there decide to go on the Internet. And, find her a lawyer.
At first? It wasn't Ken Thompson! Some guy named Shapiro. Who uses his skills IN THE PROFESSION ... to find Ken Thompson. I'm sure he interviews the maid before he takes her on as a client.
Oh, and then? The cops told the media the maid's name was a "secret." Good luck with that! Some hacker splashed the woman's name and photo all over the Internet.
And, half the men fainted! Because they didn't know she was Black.
And, have the stupid white men tell ya they "always get whores to give them blow jobs for free."
Or how they get serviced without paying ... because instead of zippering up and reaching for their wallets ... they use their legs to run away.
Guess the white men don't gotta jump, huh?
Over in France, where "da' seducer" is now looked at with a crooked eye ... They turned first to the piece of information ... that the MEDIA got to get a whack at DSK ... before the maid even knew who he was.
Now lots of white men are angry because the maid's case has gone to civil court.
As if none of them ever got out of a car accident, UNHURT ... but they show up wearing a neck brace. Suing for whiplash.
Anyway, Cyrus Vance is no longer in charge. And, Ken Thompson is free to use language that will blow you away in their specificity. You'll know more about sex when this is over ... then you ever learned as a kid ... when you asked your parents "where did I come from?"
"Is it reasonably possible that she is telling the truth? especially given that others are accusing the defendant of similar sexual wrongdoing? YES. This case was one for THE JURY to decide."
You say that as if the jury has a magically capacity to ascertain the truth. But it will look at the same evidence and try to figure it out, then apply the standard of proof which is strongly weighted in favor of the defendant. Why would you put someone through that ordeal simply because it's "reasonably possible" that the defendant is guilty? If the jury only thinks that, it's required to acquit!
In reality, very seldom would a prosecutor KNOW a person is innocent. But, if they do they are duty sworn to dismiss. The question is can they convict.
Often there's the wide area where how witnesses do on the stand will determine the outcome, and you can never know for sure how a witness will do until they actually get on the stand. I would be involved w/ prepping witnesses on a daily basis. You can usually tell how they'll do, but it's not unusual to be surprised, both ways. The toughest witnesses are young children. You need to first qualify them prior to their taking the oath. The prosecutor has to prove the witness knows what the oath means, that they know the difference between right and wrong, and that they can differentiate time, for instance something happened a week ago, month ago, last year, etc. And, that they can understand sequence, this occurred prior to that.
However, I'm very interested on what Carol Herman has to say on this topic.
Michael K. the NY Post doesn't! They took the cops words for gospel. That Diallo was a prostitute.
There's been a lawsuit, but it's real quiet.
Ken Thompson is gonna have a field day, ahead!
People will think of the way lawyers make money. And, it wasn't just Johnnie Cochran, may he rest in peace.
Never mind..I just read her drivel. My God this woman is allowed to vote and be a juror!!
Cyrus Vance's chances as "fame" got sideswiped when Ken Thompson filed civil charges in a Bronx courtroom.
If only people in Madison were so lucky ... that they'd have other boroughs saner than what you find in "DANE" ...
For me? My best carry-away moment came when Cyrus Vance mounted the stage. The rooom was full of stooges from the press. And, into his first sentence ... the room, the building, the whole town ... began to rock!
You know, Vance saw everyone rising ... and rushing for the exits. He then said, "WAIT. I come from Seattle. I know all about earthquakes. Let's find another room with a camera."
Ken Thompson is gonna tell ya all about the NINE MINUTES ... the maid was unfortunately alone with the naked man ... whose name she did not know.
But yes. She knew he was a guest. And, she could lose her job.
To this day, I do believe (because Ken Thompson's office really does employment work) ... that the Sofitel is paying her wages.
A guess? Well, I'm not a lawyer!
But if I wanted one, I'd call Ken Thompson.
Kevin observes: "Even right-wingers can be frightened by the ability of prosecutors to wreck the lives of innocent people."
Yes, and given that, did it ever occur to you that this is not a left-right issue? Or does that concept not compute?
Everyone look @ their calendars. A producer for the tv show, Intervention wants to do one w/ Carol Herman. They're looking @ next February 2nd[Groundhog Day]!
ndspinelli, you horses ass! Because I get jury summones ... I not only "go." But I've learned that because I'm over 70 ... I can "request" which court I have to go to.
And, I get to sit and watch as so many other people try to get out of serving. Judges just whack this stuff away like nobody's business.
Me? On the other hand ... I talk straight to the judge. When I'm disqualified neither the prosecutor or the defense needs to be dinged.
I say straight out to the judge at my first opportunity, that I'm a fan of jury nullification. And, while I can't give the number of the correct amendment ... I know our Founding Fathers didn't let judges into jury rooms.
MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
It's a big factor in how America works.
(Oh, and in my last go-round. The jurors were all handed a bubble questionnaire. I didn't like it one bit. So I filled in each and every bubble.) I'm "all of the categories."
I have a feeling I'm not going to be called back?
Dentists, and doctors. And, managers. All who work for a living ... should be so lucky.
How did I discover this? I wrote a letter, back in 2002 ... to the head judge in LA. Telling him the farce of keeping a whole slew of jurors ... ALL that were present! Over Labor Day weekend. TO TORTURE THEM ALL!
When I returned to court on that Tuesday, I handed a copy of my letter to the sheriff at the door. By noon. I got called up ... and was told to take my paperwork to the jury room. So I could go home.
If I served on a jury ... I think I could get along with 11 other people! Here? Not so much. But we're not jurors!
Oh, yeah. Cyrus Vance is a politician's son with family connections.
Is that over 70 IQ, Ms. Herman?
Here’s one.
“ .. a bubble questionnaire.”
Okay. I misread that. Sitting too far from my screen. Not zoomed in enough. I read – “a hubble questionnaire.”
I’m thinking, “what the hell’s a hubble questionnaire? – what outer space jurisdiction is this? – and why haven’t I heard of this?”
Google search turns up something about Italy's Tuscany region. Whatever.
Come back here to find my mistake.
Only to find out that it really is all about red shift after all – one juror moving away from the universe of other jurors by being dismissed from the jury? – or did all the jurors get to go home? – was it an accusation of torture or only the Labor Day inconvenience that caused this happy result? – or did the judge taking pity on the other 11 because of the torturous thought of making 11 happy people become “12 Angry Men” by being trapped in a room with one unhappy Labor Day camper?
“If I served on a jury ... I think I could get along with 11 other people!”
Why not make it interesting? – get ‘em all pissed off?
This sort of prosecutorial overreach ought to have painful consequences.
The traditional pound of flesh might be a bit too barbaric, but I'm thinking something a bit more modern and humane.
I would be alright with 4 ounces of liposuction without anesthesia for offending prosecutors (at their expense).
I'm assuming most prosecutors have a few extra lbs they can do away with anyway, so it's a procedure they could survive on a repeated basis should they feel the need, for political purposes, to act without restraint.
Not only must an innocent defendant suffer the "anguish" of trial if a prosecutor chooses to carry on with the prosecution, but the defendant must pay for a good defense, which is ruinously expensive for all but the most affluent of defendants.
Thus, even if acquitted, the defendant may be bankrupted.
It is a prosecutor's professional and ethical obligation, it seems to me, to dismiss charges against any defendant he or she can determine is probably innocent, or against whom there is no substantive evidence. I'm sure there are prosecutors who do, in fact, follow this ethical obligation, but there are also those who are ambitious for career advancement and success, and they see any successful prosecution as another step upward to their goal...the fates of the hapless defendants are of little or no concern to such prosecutors.
When I see people exonerated from guilt after years in prison and hear the original (or successor) prosecutors assert they are "confident the right person was convicted" and the acquittal is some sort of subversion of justice, I go berserk with fury at the remorselessness of such people. They are more concerned with their careers, with their reputations, than they are with the lives stolen from innocent men and women who have spent years in prison hells.
Amen. I am a criminal defense attorney in Colorado and prosecutors routinely bring weak to non-existent cases on politically sensitive topics to trial.
In domestic violence cases, the elected DA does not want to be the one whose office dismissed for lack of evidence a case against the next perpetrator of a murder suicide.
In DUI cases, the elected DA does not want MADD supporting a campaign against him in the next election because his office dismisses "too many" drinking and driving cases for lack of evidence.
If the case goes to jury and the jury acquits, then the DA's office has political cover. Meanwhile, the accused unnecessarily spends money going to trial, loses countless nights of sleep and, if he or she cannot make bond, loses weeks of liberty sitting in jail.
Our justice system may be better than those in most other countries, but so long as it is run by human beings, it can still offer rough and often arbitrary justice.
When I prosecuted, I tried to keep this in mind. Now that I defend, I try to remind my counterparts at the DA's office of their special responsibility to apply justice.
Morganthau is now 91 years old. As NYC's DA, before Cyrus Vance (using family connections)gets the democrapic appointment to run as DA ...
There was a prosecutor's office that ran with efficiency.
Now, it's a SNAKE PIT!
Cyrus Vance already lost the two cops who raped a drunk young women, case. (Because the DNA evidence got ground into the floor ... before the "file" got to court.)
The NYPD has fired the two cops, anyway.
And, one of them is going through a child support case. So, it hasn't exactly disappeared from the views New Yorkers get.
Why was the maid tortured by the DA's staff? Who ever heard of a witness being called a liar ... to the point where she falls out of her chair ... and rolls on the floor?
And, then? Ken Thompson pulled her out of further interviews!
The DA then smears the maid in the press with a SUMMARY ... that doesn't exist ... of some criminal's phone calls TO the maid. Because that's the laws in Arizona.
You think Ms. Diallo thinks that guy was her sweetheart? Are you shitting me?
Finally, after lots of haggling ... Ken Thompson got the DA to let him and Ms. Diallo listen to the 3 recordings. (Ken Thompson brought his own interpreter along.)
The words in the SUMMARY are nowhere to be found!
Believe what you want.
We live in a free country.
Ahead? Any court action happens in the BRONX! Manhattan's different boroughs also have DIFFERENT DAs!
Abner Louima's 1997 case was a hard one to bring to a jury. (That's where Ken Thompson starts. He's the assistant DA in Brooklyn, who opens the case for the prosecution.)
By the way how cheap do you have to be not to pay for a blow job? Which DSK is trying to prove is the way the sex act took place.
Oh, yeah. The maid said to free herself, she threw him against a piece of furniture.
Yet, DSK's attorneys said that DSK had a married woman up to his room for sex. At 1:00 AM the night before. And, the security cameras got a good look at her, too.
Well, you think Aristotle Onassis had a hard time getting broads to screw?
The maid, however, wasn't willing! More power to her for that!
You don't have to piss people off on purpose, random arrow.
Nor do I know what jurors are forced to answer questionnaires. Everyone who showed up that day, however, got one. And, was told to fill them in.
Of course, at first, I asked "do I have to?" But then I thought ... WHY BOTHER! It's got BUBBLES! It's not an SAT! Nobody's gonna treat this thing like it's a quiz.
So, I thought to myself ...
I've got a pen.
I'll just fill in ALL the bubbles.
This way you know I'm asian, white, black, yellow and red. You know I have an income stream from zero to a million dollars ... (Or whatever the top bubble says you've got.)
Don't piss me off.
Other than that? In the jury room I am very quiet. I'm always reading some hardcover ... And, I can entertain myself by reading for hours and hours and hours. If I need to? And, one book is close to the end? I bring another to start.
I just finished Huckleberry Finn, by the way.
Did you know those adventures were written by Huckleberry Finn? Those were the very last words.
Books are the best carry along ... And, you don't need to fish for an outlet ... to plug anything in.
I'm really a very old fashioned gal.
Haven't made a single enemy in any jury room where I sat ... with lots of people people. All of us waiting to have our numbers called.
I totally agree with Robert Cook, perhaps for the first and last time.
You don't have to piss people off on purpose, random arrow.
Not when it comes naturally.
“.. WHY BOTHER! It's got BUBBLES!”
Delightful.
“Don't piss me off.”
Ha. Sounds like ambient temperature complaining about having a temperature.
“I just finished Huckleberry Finn, by the way.”
Maybe you can calm your nerves by reading more Melville spitting from “hell’s heart?”
“Books are the best carry along ... And, you don't need to fish for an outlet ... to plug anything in.”
I hate to admit. I just purchased my first kindle edition. Not impressed. Something doesn’t feel right.
“Haven't made a single enemy in any jury room where I sat ... with lots of people people. All of us waiting to have our numbers called.”
My mistake. I thought you described jury duty. Not people people waiting!
Jim
I'm surprised at the number of people here who are ready to believe that the accuser is lying.
Why do you believe that?
Why isn't it just as possible that NYC police and the prosecutor's office deliberately smeared this woman with false statements, to give them political cover to drop the charges against DSK?
I have jury duty the week of 9/19. I answered all the questions on the form. I won't ask the judge stupid questions. I will perform this civic duty for the 3rd time in my life w/ pride. And, if anyone wants to know how you could get such a horrible OJ verdict, the answer is simple. Carol Herman. LA has more than their share of Carol Hermans.
Naw, Carol’s fun.
Carol’s the dictionary definition of francl.
The intransitive. With the side-order meaning of: “to answer questions not yet asked.” Though I’m not sure about the minimal prompting required.
When answering unasked questions that are about to be asked (at some point in the infinite future), it gives an aura of omniscience. Or thereabouts.
There are no known facts about the victim being a worthless lying POS.
That is only the DSK team's assertions regurgitated in the DA's press releases to justify letting him walk.
No one has any reason to trust the DA's office. None at all.
A jury would be harder to buy off, so an innocent French tourist cannot be put at risk.Hmmm?
Heck, Blagojevich knew this from both side as the deal seller and as the man a jury heard evidence on.
We get to hear no evidence on DSK. Why??
ndspinelli,
"My God this woman is allowed to vote and be a juror!!"
Well, that's how she presents herself... but you do realize that she might really be a dog on the internet, don't you?
Robert Cook,
Once again, I'm extremely happy to find myself in the rare position of agreeing with you 100%!
Random Arrow,
I'm sure Carol would be more fun that a barrel of laughs... ... ... on her own blog. There, you and her three other fans could enjoy yourselves to hear hearts' content.
Kirk,
What makes you think this isn’t Carol’s own blog?
Ever read Margaret Somers’s, “The Narrative Constitution of Identity,” and how Somers treats law professor, Patricia Williams’s, double-voiced narratives?
I’m not suggesting Carol is Ann is Carol. Save that double and triple and multiple voices are made room for here.
Another way of saying there is no proprietary voice when the proprietor here allows for many. Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, “there is no slander in an allowed fool.” Particularly a fool allowed and on hire to destroy the orthodoxy of monologue.
I don't have a blog.
Are people just stupid?
Those who claim that they have formed their judgement on this case without respect to the sex, race, and class of the participants have attained an enviable level of self delusion....Vance had to drop the case not because it was so weak but because it would be so easy to obtain a guilty verdict in a NYC courtroom....All the underlying issues of race, sex, and class would not have been resolved in a jury trial. They would instead have been exacerbated and throw in a souring of Franco-American relations to boot......Of all bad outcomes, this is the least bad. I don't know the proper level of punishment for DSK's transgression, but he has received more than Ted Kennedy and lots of other well connected men.
Okay, since all of you are so enthralled with getting jury summonses in the mail ... it never even dawns on that there are people who don't quite like them.
And, I'm 72. I said so. And, I've never lied about my age.
The rules change for seniors in the LA area. When we call in to "verify" receipt of our summons, we can ALSO ask for a "change in date."
I like to get "changed to Alhambra's courthouse." Lots of times, before I reached 70 ... I had to go to the courthouse where I had been summoned. It was like moving mountains to get this changed.
THEN, I didn't get a summons between 2002 and 2011. When mine came in the mail, I called. And, when my call was answered, I was told "because I was over 70, I could ask to be assigned to any courthouse I wanted to travel to."
IT WAS NEWS TO ME!
When I got my summons, I again had to follow instructions. You can't just "call." You have to wait for Sunday night, to find out your group's instructions.
You can do this every day for a week. And, then you're free of any obligations for another year.
My phone call ... (already established I'm going to the Albambra courthouse) was to show up on Monday morning. Which I did.
The questionnaire part? Go ahead. Test me. I'm not going to give you the information you want! Not about my race. Not about my finances. I'm not even going to tell you my height and weight!
Stick the questionnaire up where the sun don't shine.
Meanwhile, I had to "hand back the paper." Which I did! Every single bubble was carefully filled in. Just like I learned to do with Scantron's. Sue me.
Up ahead, because Ken Thompson figured out Vance's reach couldn't get to the Bronx ... he's probably also protected the maid from deportation. As long as there's a judge in the Bronx who has not tossed out the maid's case.
Even in France, there's a case against DSK.
And, BEFORE Vance said "he couldn't tell if the maid was telling the truth or not," Ken Thompson figured out his number.
Because Wigdor (Thompson's partner), traveled to Paris BEFORE Vance pulled the case out of the NY Criminal Courtroom) ... I read in the foreign press ... that Wigdor had a STANDING ROOM ONLY CROWD ... where he said there are pictures of Diallo's vagina. Showing force-able assault.
Ah. And, then I read with Vance gone, now ... Ken Thompson is FREE to talk all he wants to about the NINE MINUTES in the "fancy hotel room." Where men and go and ejaculate on the wallpaper.
That one, actually came as a surprise!
Sure, I knew maids had to clean up pee ... Most men don't fire into the toilet bowl ... so much as around the rim.
But I figured Cyrus Vance was indeed pissed off at the Sofitel management. So he gave them a "noogy."
The French are indeed interested in learning more. DSK's political chances? Would'a been nice to Mary Jo Kopecni if she got justice served like that.
Jackie O? I never thought she had a good night with Aristotle.
What if she's telling the truth?
It is not the job of the prosecutor to believe or disbelieve his witnesses, just as it is not the job of the defense attorney to believe or disbelieve his client. That is the job of the jury. The credibility of witnesses is FOR THE JURY, not the judge, not the prosecutor, not the defense counsel.
Decisions to go to trial -- and to arrest and commence prosecution in the first place -- are to be based entirely on the evidence. Here, there is enough evidence to convict if only somebody bothers to not automatically assume that the complaining witness is lying.
But now, if she is telling the truth -- and if any other woman who is in fact is raped and goes to the police, but all there is is her word against his -- the proper response should be "too f***ing bad"?
Let's concede, for the sake of the argument, that she is a notorious liar. Notorious liars are incapable of being raped? Notorious liars are free game? Rich, elite, power white guys can have their way with her with impunity, saying to her after, "go ahead and tell, no one will believe you"?
Let's change up the scenario a bit --
Suppose you have a case where the accuser is the town slut. She has had sex with anybody and everybody. Plus she likes to booze it up. And she's been convicted of shoplifting.
Now, the town slut goes out to the bar and gets drunk. Guy offers her a ride home, she accepts. He suggests they have sex. She's tired, she does not want to.
The guy doesn't care. He forces her to have sex with him. She says "no," but doesn't want to get beat up, so she doesn't resist, thereby avoiding bruises, etc.
Afterward, she calls the cops, goes to the hospital, they do a rape kit. Prosecutor comes along and says, "hey, isn't this the town slut who does everyone, a notorious drunk who has a conviction for a crime of moral turpitude, for which her credibility can be impeached? How can I be sure that she didn't consent?"
Should the prosecutor play gatekeeper -- should he combine the roles of police, prosecutor, judge, and jury into one -- and refuse to take the case to trial? Or is our rape victim entitled to her day in court?
all there is is her word against his -- the proper response should be "too f***ing bad"?
Yes, it should. Absolutely no question.
No person should be imprisoned solely because another person told a story, in a courtroom or anywhere else.
I knew before I even clicked the comments that Bender and Carol would hijack the comments. It's not nice. Our little coffee shop atmosphere has two people standing on the tables beating us over the head with newspapers. I am not for censorship, but you two should be banned from commenting on the DSK case. You are both out of line, unreasonable, and obnoxious.
FYI - I tried reading one of your posts, but can't stomach your palaver.
Have I mentioned that the criminal "justice" system in this country is massively corrupt?
Someone asked, "What if she's telling the truth?" To which I ask, "Which time?"
Bender -- I am hereby accusing you of raping me. Should you go to trial?
You know, believe it or not, the case is not going to go away! There isn't a "checkbook" in the world.
Plus, DSK's lawyers went after Ken Thompson saying they wanted him to produce his notebooks ... to Cyrus Vance ... "showing he named a price for the case to disappear in June."
Ken Thompson said those are lies, too.
But exactly how can someone get DSK to realize he "should'a paid the dame?"
He sez he got a blow job.
And, the woman didn't know his name!
Cops knew it right away! Sofitel's hotel management told them.
Where was the maid? At the hospital.
When was DSK arrested? At 4:00 PM. Very dramatically. Even though rapes happen in NYC every day. And, they don't make the front pages of newspapers. Let alone, internationally!
Here? The cops for some reason found examining Ms. Diallo so hard ... that after she was raped (around noon). She doesn't get home till 3AM. And, by this time the police know the woman's illiterate.
Did they learn this at the hospital when they asked her to sign the forms?
Have you ever been to a hospital where you're not signing forms out your ying yang?
The next day, (after catching a few hours sleep), Ms. Diallo rises. With every intention of getting dressed (in a new uniform). And, going to work. When she flips on the TV! And, she sees the guy who raped her!
At this point her levels of fear really kicks in. And, it is at this point that she goes to people within her community. Her words are very clear ... "That guy on TV put his penis in my mouth."
A male in her community searches the Internet and finds her a lawyer.
And, two or three days later (after the press said her name wouldn't be released), her name gets released all over the Internet. And, her photo shows up.
The first non-believers form a group. She's Black. The Frenchman wouldn't go to her for a sex act, would he?
Did Bill Clinton go to Monica?
If she didn't save her Blue Gap dress ... you'd have no clue.
Linda Tripp told Monica to save that dress, because otherwise she'd be killed.
On what level playing field do you think you're standing.
Wow. I'm no longer not even the old one who questions most of you around here. Glad to see Bender.
Glad to know there are plenty of others ... not familiar with this blog ... who think Cyrus Vance grabbed at "his" headline first.
And, after that the attacks against the maid began in earnest.
Three out of 44 comments constitutes "hijacking" (now four)??
How is it unreasonable that a case should proceed to trial where, if the complaining witness were to testify that the defendant sexually assaulted her, such evidence would be sufficient to deny a defense motion for a directed verdict and for the jury to convict?
Let's see how this scenario would play out in the real world, and as it has played out in countless other cases (at least where the defendant is some indigent black guy or poor white trash and not a rich, elite, powerful, politically connected white guy) --
CW on direct: Defendant forced me to commit sex acts upon him against my consent.
Defense attorney on cross: Didn't you lie about this and that in the past?
CW on cross: Yes.
Defense attorney: So you are lying now?
CW on cross: No, I'm telling the truth. The defendant forced me to commit sex acts upon him against my consent.
Prosecution rests.
Defense attorney: We move for a directed verdict of not guilty.
Court: Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, motion denied.
Defendant testifies: I did not engage in sex acts with CW. I did not force her to engage in such acts against her will.
Prosecutor: No questions.
Defense attorney: We move for a directed verdict of not guilty.
Court: Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, motion denied. Questions of credibility of the witnesses are for the jury.
Jury verdict: We find the defendant guilty.
Defendant appeals.
Appellate court: Judgment of conviction affirmed. The testimony of the CW was sufficient to establish each of the elements of the offense. Questions of credibility of the witnesses are for the jury, not the trial court or the appellate court.
OR, in an alternative scenario --
Jury verdict: We find the defendant not guilty.
CW: But he raped me!
Court: The jury has spoken. The defendant is free to go. Court is adjourned.
THAT is how the system works.
So, Bender, you agree that you should go on trial any time somebody accuses you of rape. Really?
It's not just "he said, she said."
There's evidence at the crime scene! Saliva and sperm. Uniform damage. Carpeting stains. And, go figure. "Semen soaked carpeting. And, wallpaper.
I'd even bet at the hospital they took photographs.
Is some of this evidence in Ken Thompson's possession?
Why not?
Cyrus Vance gets to keep the maid's uniform, now? And, all the hospital reports? REALLY?
While I think Ken Thompson has been freed to talk about the evidence in ways he couldn't do ... if this stuff was still in criminal court.
Oh. Not just in America. In France.
@ Robert Zimmerman and Kirk Parker.
Ditto on Robert Cook's comment.
Blind squirrel and all that.
It's the undisputed facts that confuse me. DSK is an overweight man in his sixties. He steps out of the shower and sees a chunky, middle aged maid. He is so overcome with lust that he either rapes her or bargains for her services. The entire affair takes less than fifteen minutes....This really happened, but the events are completely incomprehensible to me. Some people live not so much in a different world as a different dimension than the rest of us.....A few observations: Impoverished and illiterate people are capable of dishonesty and cunning--as the maid has demonstrated. Don't sell this woman short. There are quite a lot of hurdles in a trip from Africa to America, and she successfully negotiated them. She has considerable craft and wiles.....Who knew that fat, old men were capable of such sudden, goatish lust?...Both characters in this drama have more facets than their stereotypes would indicate. Playing the stereotypes, I would have thought that a woman like Diallo would be invisible to a man like DSK and not an object of lust.
SM --
I propose to you an alternative scenario.
Your mother invites the neighbor inside to have a glass of lemonade because it is hot outside. While there, the neighbor rapes your mom, telling her that he will kill her if she resists.
After he is done with your mom, she calls the cops and reports that she's been raped. But, because she did not put up a fight, there are no bruises, and because the neighbor used a condom, there is no DNA evidence.
In short, it is your mom's word against his.
Should that case be allowed to proceed to trial? Or do you derail the process and tell your mother, "Too damn bad, Mom! You shouldn't have invited him in and you should have put up a fight. With only your word against his, the prosecutor is right to dismiss the case."
Bender -- The answer is that neither your hypothetical, nor my hypothetical, nor the rape by Strauss-Kahn happened. And the district attorney has or would properly choose not to prosecute in all three cases.
But humor me. I say you raped me. Should you now go to trial? Why or why not?
Since I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea how a case gets presented.
But wouldn't there be a time that Sofitel's management would come to the stand? The maid worked at a hotel for 3 years. And, has an established employment record.
Certainly, the first person who saw her "after the event" was her supervisor. Would it be an important question to ask (him or her), what occurred right then and there?
I don't think DSK would ever testify!
I don't even think, if we're in a Bronx courtroom later, that DSK even shows up.
Not sure of the term. But I've heard "summary judgement."
And, if DSK doesn't show up to defend himself in civil court ... Why, I think, the judge would hand the maid her victory.
Or whatever it's called.
When lawyers have cases that go to trial.
I'd think if DSK didn't show up at all ... you couldn't even sit a jury.
So, there ya go.
There's some sort of judge's decision. He just doesn't wave the maid off. And, say "we tried."
I doubt he'd also say "give the made a twenty." Or a dollar.
I don't think that's how it works, either.
Plus, by the time this would reach a Bronx courtoom, we'd be in 2013. And, Cyrus Vance would be up for re-election.
Good luck. With all his family's connections!
Plus, Wigdor's been to Paris. In Paris they're also looking to solve this with making DSK pay. (Or I guess his wife pays?) He's sure looks to be an expensive man to keep. YUCK!
Said the same thing when Jackie Kennedy married Onassis.
Carol -- You are confusing civil cases and criminal cases. In criminal cases, the government must prove each element of its case to a judge or jury before a penalty can occur, regardless of the presence of the defendant.
But please stop. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Here is another scenario, which I raised but everyone in favor of dismissal has ignored --
What if she is telling the truth?
You people who applaud the dismissal, assume that she is being truthful here. Assume that she was, in fact, sexually assaulted.
In such a case, dismissal would be justice denied. Dismissal would leave a rapist walking the streets.
Mind you, there has already been legally established that there is, not only reasonable suspicion of guilt, but probable cause of guilt.
Should the case be dismissed, knowing that she is telling the truth?
The answer is that neither your hypothetical, nor my hypothetical, nor the rape by Strauss-Kahn happened.
SM, were you there? I presume you were not. Thus, you do not, in fact, know if Strauss-Kahn is guilty or not, you have not seen the evidence that would be presented at trial. You have instead made a judgment on the Strauss-Kahn even without considering any legal evidence.
But the fact remains that YOU have made a judgment on the case. Why should a (trial) jury not also make a judgment on the case (a grand jury has already considered the matter and handed up an indictment against him)?
Why should a jury be denied the very thing that you have done here (although the jury would instead consider the evidence and not merely jump to unsubstantiated conclusions)?
Should the case be dismissed, knowing that she is telling the truth?
The prosecutor quite obviously does not believe that she is telling the truth. So your question is silly.
Why won't you answer my question, Bender? Is it because it leads inexorably to making you look foolish? Is it because you must thereby agree that some independent arbitrator with ethical obligations to the alleged rapist and the alleged victim must look at the evidence before a jury does?
But the fact remains that YOU have made a judgment on the case.
I have made no more of a judgment on the case than you have. I have merely said that it is squarely within the purview of a prosecutor to decide to drop charges against a defendant when the case is a weak one.
Why shouldn't you go to trial and face years of incarceration in a fuck-me-in-the-ass prison if I say you raped me?
The police confiscated my firearms as evidense of a case thrown out of court...but haven't gotten around to returning the weapons.
Its a year next week
7 Machos, your brains are scrambled.
I've read about this case, probably more than you have! I didn't bring my suppositions to the table. I brought here what I've read, elsewhere.
Who sez I needed to go to law school to have an opinion?
I not only know the "difference" between civil and criminal. I know in criminal courts you need 12 jurors. But in civil matters only 6.
And, Manhattan was ROBBED by Cyrus Vance! Who went after this poor maid with a vengeance! He called in every card he had available to him through his political connections.
Then, when I watched his presser ... And, I saw what happened when the earthquake shook up everything. And, his entire audience rose ... and left ... I saw him walking off stage muttering "I come from Seattle. I know all about earthquakes. Let's find another room with a camera."
And, ya know what? If you told me the maid hired a guy to do voodoo ... I'd believe that's what actually happened.
I've never seen a ruined press conference quite like that one!
The Civil Case has been moved to the Bronx.
Ken Thompson was on the prosecution team, in Brooklyn, that tried the cops that stuck the toilet plunger into Abner Louima's ass. He knows all about "difficult cases."
Then? Ken Thompson went from the prosecutor's office. (The DA in Brooklyn). Into his own defense firm.
I also know that Ken Thompson's mom was a cop. Worked in the Bronx. And, was one of the first women to ever been given a beat to walk.
Ken Thompson knows New York!
Cyrus Vance knows Seattle.
And, Wigdor was in Paris, working with the French team suing DSK for rape of Ms. Banon.
We came to INTERMISSION.
I will say this --
Prosecutors who engage in perp walks like this defendant received should be disciplined for ethics violations. And courts should seriously consider dismissal where the police engage in perp walks, the only purpose of which is to publicly smear the accused and turn public opinion against him, not to mention being substantial security risks.
Jails and courts all have dedicated garages and dedicated elevators and holding cells. There is absolutely ZERO reason that a detained defendant should ever be transported through public areas.
Bender -- I generally agree about perp walks. In this case, the man was on a plane bound for another country, and the perp walk was largely unavoidable.
Moreover, Strauss-Kahn was given an absolutely immediate hearing and then quickly (if I recall, in about 96 hours) granted bail. Thereafter, he lived in a nicer home than you or I probably ever will.
Finally, this woman can still sue Strauss-Kahn, and win.
Honestly: we should all be very proud of this case.
I'm with Bender!
And, the maid didn't do the "perp walk!" She was actually held at the hospital for a very long time ... probably with staff being told to KEEP HER AWAY FROM ANY TV!
By the time she got home she went to sleep for a few hours.
Only to wake in the morning ... and have that "perp walk" not only showing up! But the poor woman recognized the guy who raped her!
Not exactly like the police asking you to come to the station and pick him out of a line up.
DSK was also entitled to that, too!
Want to bet that Cyrus Vance won't run into "ethical waters" problems?
But good for you, Bender, for pointing this out!
I have made no more of a judgment on the case than you have.
Wrong, SM.
I don't know if this guy is guilty or not guilty. I've not seen the evidence. I've not been in the courtroom. It is not my place to decide if he is guilty or not guilty. It FOR THE JURY to decide questions of guilt or innocence. If a jury, after being allowed to consider the evidence, says he is not guilty, then three cheers for him and let him go.
I don't know if OJ is guilty or not. I don't know if Michael Jackson was guilty or not. I don't know if Casey Anthony is guilty or not. I don't know if Al Gore is guilty or not. I don't know if Bill Clinton is guilty or not. I've not been in the courtroom or seen the evidence in any of those cases. It is not my call, it is for the jury.
It is not my place to decide if he is guilty or not guilty. It FOR THE JURY to decide questions of guilt or innocence.
This is not true. A prosecutor has an ethical obligation not to proceed with cases when the evidence does not warrant proceeding. This obligation is to the defendant, who faces incarceration, to the state, which has limited resources, and to the people, who must trust that the prosecutor is acting at all times fairly.
One other thing: the prosecutor and all lawyers have an obligation to try cases zealously. Which means you do your very best all the time. How can a prosecutor who doubts the guilt of a defendant be expected to do that?
Again -- I say you raped me. Why shouldn't you go to trial?
It is not my place to decide if he is guilty or not guilty. It FOR THE JURY to decide questions of guilt or innocence.
And let me add this -- in the over 15 years as a criminal defense attorney, I have NEVER asked a client if he did it or not. Whether guilty or not, the defendant deserves a zealous defense. But it is not my province to personally decide if he is guilty or not. What is my province is to convince the prosecutor and the jury that he is not guilty.
I don't fault defense counsel here. They did their job.
But the prosecutor did not.
when the evidence does not warrant proceeding
Once again -- the evidence here is legally sufficient to convict.
The prosecutor's personal beliefs as to the credibility of his witness is irrelevant, just as the prosecutor's personal beliefs as to the guilt of the defendant is irrelevant.
In fact, for the prosecutor to suggest that he would not bring the case if he did not personally believe the defendant guilty would be a gross ethical violation.
But it is not my province to personally decide if he is guilty or not.
Bender -- Prosecutors have ethical obligations that criminal defense attorneys do not have. If you are a criminal defense attorney, then you certainly know this.
The prosecutors absolutely did their jobs. They looked at the evidence and decided not to go to trial. That's a very big part of the job. As I have said in these pages, prosecutors should do it far more often.
I would venture to guess that the vast majority of cases are nothing more than he-said, she-said or he-said, he-said cases, all coming down to the credibility of the witness.
Usually, it comes down to the testimony of a police officer against the testimony of the defendant.
Random Arrow, at 3:52 PM.
You seem to be asking about the letter I wrote to the head judge at the LA Superior Court, Courthouse. Complaining how I was among 150 jurors ... summoned.
We were in Alhambra's largest courtoom. Minimum 150 people. It was a murder case. The guy accused only spoke spanish. Everything was going to be translated.
And, I just sat and listened. Most people are honest. The jury summons is inconvenient. Some say "their English isn't good enough." (Shot down.) Others are professionals. Like dentists. Who need to cancel patients. Their excuses are shot down.
While all this is getting translated in a monotone. To the defendant.
Finally, sitting in one of the jury seats is an engineering professor from Cal State LA. He says he doesn't speak Spanish. And, he makes it very clear to his students at the start of every term that they cannot bring translators with them into his classes!
Then he adds, because he thinks translators don't cover emotions ... so he wouldn't be able to weigh testimony given in Spanish ...
And, this went back and forth for about 20 minutes. Finally, he was free to go.
At the end of Friday, we were all told to return on Tuesday. (Except for those already discharged.) Wow. And audience of more than 100 people!
Plus, I agreed with the engineering professor. There's no way I'd accept "transcripts." Or "translators." Nope. I'm English speaking ONLY.
But I don't even think I got called up to get questioned.
As I said, I walked into court Tuesday morning. And, gave a copy of my letter to the sheriff. And, went in to the courtroom. Where things went on and on for hours. Then it was lunch. (And, I was asked to "stay.")
Just long enough for the jduge to tell me I could go home. HALLELUJAH!
Didn't get called back until February of this year.
I hate this stinking system.
But not the people I meet in the jurors room! I find people to be friendly. And, nice.
Oh, this time? A SINGLE COUNT! A poor guy that got "police bitch slapped." And, that was the ONE COUNT! He was NOT GUILTY.
I'd have sat there till hell froze over holding my position.
But I didn't have to.
I got to go home.
Till the next time. Whatever. I'm always gonna request Alhambra.
all coming down to the credibility of the witness
Here, you answer all your questions but, apparently, you don't understand it. The prosecutor did not find the witness credible. That's all that has happened. Not only do prosecutors have a choice not to prosecute when they find the key witness not credible, they have an ethical obligation not to prosecute.
Again, as a lawyer, you know all this. So you can stop complaining now. Your issue has been resolved.
Bender and Carol - since you can't take a hint. You are both 4,138 words out of 7,102 total comment words. That is 58%. TOO MUCH...
Bender - your argument was and is very basic. 'Victim' might be telling the truth so we should go to trial. WRONG WRONG WRONG! Your statement is patently false and ignores the ENTIRE point of Althouse's present post. You are saying just because there is a slight possibility of her truthfulness we should drag the defendant, defendant's lawyers, prosecutors, victim, judge, media, and basically the world through the process.
You entirely miss the point of the post. Should we go through a trial just for the sake of process when those prosecuting do not believe in the defendant? YOU DO NOT ADDRESS WHY THEY SHOULD PROCEED WHEN THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE CASE. Talk to that and you will not be wasting out time.
You know what you can do with your word count Damon.
First of all, Ken Thompson knew what was coming down the pike!
Plus, the BIG STORY is how Cyrus Vance tried to use his office to "get the maid."
He got her "on par" with the way he "got" his press conference.
Double raped! Double victimized!
While the DA's office in Manhattan is a snake pit!
This isn't the first case that's gone south on Cyrus Vance either!
His office lost the case against the two cops!
Then? There's the public forum, ahead.
And, France's case with Ms. Banon claiming she suffered an assault is also ahead.
The french? They didn't want to work with Cyrus Vance!
Wigdor, on the other hand, has no trouble working "over there."
And, at some point DSK's wife is gonna have to pay for her husband's "artwork." Picasso must be laughing.
7m,
"Bender -- I am hereby accusing you of raping me."
You're just making that up! I'm quite sure Carol was the victim.
Nope.
I just read what comes down the pike.
Should get more interesting when the curtain goes up, again.
If a prosecutor does not believe anything a witness says surely it can't be his duty to try to make the jury buy it anyway.
didn't we learn this from the mike nifong episode?
“A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.” Robert Frost
A bit too subtle for Annie and the Alt-tards but maybe with some study they'll get it.
Unusual. How many Black women are raped and you don't see this making first page news.
How many women, when the rape involves a stranger, don't have to "pick him out of a lineup?"
Nafi Diallo picked DSK out of the news program on TV.
What were the cops doing from the time they're called (around 1:00 PM), to around 3:00 AM ... when the hospital "finishes" ... and she's allowed to go home.
How come people don't notice that this illiterate woman was being kept away from news accounts. (Till she saw one in her own home. At 7:00 AM. When she woke up to go to work.)
Her first response? TERROR!
Diallo is very direct in what she tells the people within her community. "White haired man came out naked. Got to the door, and locked it. And, forced her to stay in the room. Where he put his penis in her mouth."
When Cyrus Vance discovered his BIG headline was getting him into trouble, he saw to it that the WORLD turned on the maid!
The cops "for safe keeping" ... put her in a whorehouse in Brooklyn. (She didn't know.) But the cops did! And, then you hear this woman was trafficking in sex.
Then, you hear a SUMMARY of 3 phone calls. All made by a criminal in Arizona. Who is given a tapped phone ... to call his "sweetheart."
There's a pattern!
Off to the side, a young French woman says "DSK TRIED TO RAPE ME WHEN I WAS 21. AND, HE'S A FRIEND OF MY MOM!"
In France they said it was a political hit. Because it was designed to destroy DSK's reputation.
The French first looked at the timeline.
Nobody wants to check out the behaviors towards the maid. And, all the insults flung at her.
While what are you going to believe? THE EVIDENCE?
The people who saw the maid right after the assault?
You won't ask any questions?
Your incurious over how this case developed? Maid didn't call the police. Maid didn't run out into the street. Maid was seen by her supervisor ... And, some sort of ball got rolling.
Check back in a few months. The story's far from dead.
I remember agreeing with Robert Cook once a year or so ago. Now it's twice. I find this disturbing.
Post a Comment