Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Federal prosecutors have found a new reason to apologize over misleading information they've provided to the judge in former Sen. Ted Stevens' trial, and this time Stevens' lawyers are saying the government should be held in contempt.
In fact, he wrote, not all of them gave their consent to having their names released Jan. 14 in a publicly filed copy of the eight-page complaint, though he didn't identify which ones.
"The government still does not get it. Over and over again, it has been caught red-handed making false representations to the Court and the defense," defense attorney Robert Cary said in his motion, filed publicly Thursday after initially having been submitted under seal Monday.
TROUBLE EARLY ON
Stevens' trial concluded Oct. 27. Even before the verdict, prosecutors got into trouble with the judge for not turning over evidence to the defense and for producing an inflated accounting of free work done for Stevens by Veco. Sullivan imposed sanctions on the government, stripping it of a small part of its case, but the jury appeared to have found more than ample evidence to convict Stevens on all seven disclosure counts.
Why the surprise? A lot of people unfortunately assume everyone accused of a crime by the police or a prosecutor, is guilty, that they need to prove their innocence. There was a thread on this a while back on the Great Debates forum. They probably could have presented no evidence and the jury might have convicted him. Add in his demeanor which strikes people as unfriendly...
Why the surprise? A lot of people unfortunately assume everyone accused of a crime by the police or a prosecutor, is guilty, that they need to prove their innocence. There was a thread on this a while back on the Great Debates forum. They probably could have presented no evidence and the jury might have convicted him. Add in his demeanor which strikes people as unfriendly...
But as long as the jury was instructed clearly to decide only on the evidence...and these issues that could be cause for a new trial are small procedural things, not new evidence.
Why the surprise? A lot of people unfortunately assume everyone accused of a crime by the police or a prosecutor, is guilty, that they need to prove their innocence. There was a thread on this a while back on the Great Debates forum. They probably could have presented no evidence and the jury might have convicted him. Add in his demeanor which strikes people as unfriendly...
I'm with you on the fair trial aspect, but I'm fairly certain he got a fair trial. Wasn't he like a political darling in Alaska? He's been the senator there forever. Unless he did something wrong, I doubt the jury would just convict him for no reason.
I'm with you on the fair trial aspect, but I'm fairly certain he got a fair trial. Wasn't he like a political darling in Alaska? He's been the senator there forever. Unless he did something wrong, I doubt the jury would just convict him for no reason.
For sure the fix was in for Stevens. Those prosecutors should be charged with gross misconduct.
Yes I agree..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
