Conviction of Sen. Ted Stevens Is Thrown Out 440
A federal judge has thrown out the conviction of the senator who educated us all about the true nature of the Internet. Ted Stevens had been convicted last fall of lying about free home renovations that he received from an oil contractor, 8 days before he lost his Senate re-election bid. The judge blasted the US Department of Justice prosecutors for mishandling the case in ways that might rise to the level of criminality. "In 25 years on the bench, I have never seen anything approach the mishandling and misconduct in this case," Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said. He called the allegations "shocking and disturbing." According to the article, "Several jurors have told The Washington Post that the evidence against Stevens was overwhelming during a month-long trial that ended in October."
Still Sounds Guilty to Me (Score:5, Interesting)
Much of the hearing today focused on what transpired during an April 15, 2008, interview with the key witness, Bill Allen. During that interview, according to notes taken by two of the prosecutors, Allen said he did not recall talking to a friend of Stevens's about sending the senator a bill for work on his home, according to Sullivan.
Under oath at trial, however, Allen testified that he was told by the friend to ignore a note Stevens sent seeking a bill for the remodeling work.
"Bill, don't worry about getting a bill" for Stevens, Allen said the friend told him. "Ted is just covering his [expletive]."
Ok, so we have Ted Stevens asking for a bill on the remodeling, like he should. But it sounds like one was never received or produced. So what was Stevens convicted of?
After a month-long trial, Stevens was convicted of not reporting on Senate disclosure forms that he accepted about $250,000 in gifts and free renovations to his home in Girdwood, Alaska. Most of the gifts and free remodeling work were supplied by Bill Allen, chief executive of Veco, a now-defunct oil services company.
Ok, regardless of whether or not an invoice was ever produced, the Senate is required to report things like this on their financial disclosure forms [senate.gov] so that under the table payments can be discovered. It still sounds like he's guilty for failing to put "I just got these bitching additions to my house from this contractor for $0." Which should spark an investigation.
My point is whether they find him guilty or not, he failed his duties as a senator. It's a shame the prosecution botched this case and withheld that evidence from the court as he's still guilty of failing to disclose this information publicly on his financial disclosure form.
Is He Guilty (Score:4, Interesting)
This is bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Evidence against Stevens was overwhelming (Score:2, Interesting)
Apparently, prosecutors illegally withheld evidence from the defense that was contradictory to their case.
Perhaps if Stevens was given a fair trial, the jury may have seen things differently.
Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
My father-in-law faced one of the prosecutors in a tax case once. She pulled a lot of the same crap then, harassing witnesses, changing the story she was trying to prosecute, etc.
This is almost certainly like O.J. Simpson, where a guilty man was framed.
Proof of justice department correcting itself (Score:3, Interesting)
The Justice Department had a pretty solid case at the beginning, and the Prosecutors bungled it either due to negligence or incompetence. So, the head of the dept changes, reviews, and cans one of the best cases as an example to others in his department that the "no holds barred" approach was no longer acceptable, and that all cases would be held accountable. I tip my hat to the new AG, godspeed in cleaning house, you have a mess on your hands.
Re:Is He Guilty (Score:4, Interesting)
Right - the prosecution is required by law to share all the evidence it has with the defense. It's called disclosure. Watch the movie "My Cousin Vinnie" for an explanation.
Because the prosecution withheld evidence important from the defense, that is enough to throw out the charges. Doesn't matter if it's post-conviction.
Legally Ted "inter-tubes" Stevens is no longer guilty, and he will shout that to the world from now on.
And governor Palin cries for a re-election for Steven's former senate seat, to address the wrongdoing. I wonder if she also supports freeing Aymen Batarfi, a gitmo detainee from whose defense the government also withheld substantial evidence. Maybe she'll grant him asylum in Alaska.
This wasn't an April Fool's Day gag? (Score:2, Interesting)
I first heard about the case being dismissed on NPR on April 1st. I was assuming it was an April Fool's Day gag that all the news outlets were picking up.
Remember the Hulk tie and the series of toobz! (Score:2, Interesting)
Shennanigans (Score:4, Interesting)
I honestly can't believe that as much media attention as that whole rigamarole got that said prosecutors would be able to get away with this kind of mishandling of a federal case.
Re:Is He Guilty (Score:5, Interesting)
To set aside the whole verdict - man, that takes some real stones.
It's also frustrating how little about the specifics that are even revealed in the press. There's got to be a much bigger story in all this.
Re:Still Sounds Guilty to Me (Score:2, Interesting)
Misconduct by *Republican* Prosecutors (Score:3, Interesting)
As the Liberal Media [wikipedia.org] have been pointing out, the prosecutors here were the corrupt and politically biased Bush Administration Justice Department, which was led by the corrupt Alberto Gonzalez, who Stevens had voted to confirm a few years before. So if there was intentional misconduct, well, nyahh nyahh.
Of course, if there was prosecutorial misconduct, and they have to drop those charges, chances are good that they've blown their Double Jeopardy roll and can't try him again and can't throw the old man in jail.
But that doesn't mean Stevens wasn't corrupt enough to deserve not to get re-elected, even though the Republicans are now trying to pretend that since they're the minority party, they should get a do-over on the election.
Stevens is small potatos (Score:4, Interesting)
Overturning the Stevens conviction is a cover, but not for what you might think. THe big problem facing the Obama administration is that the Justice Department is radically broken. For the past eight years hiring of career Justice Department employees has been a partisan affair, with conservative political beliefs being the litmus test. Partly because of this a culture of corruption has spread.
So, how does the Stevens reversal play into this?
1) Reverse Stevens convictions, getting approval from Republicans, so when you
2) start overturning other political witch hunts you have cover, and then
3) use the overturned cases as a way to go after corrupt Justice Department officials, giving you concrete reasons to fire them.
So, this is just the beginning. Wait and watch.
Re:Still Sounds Guilty to Me (Score:3, Interesting)
The scandal wasn't about the Bush administration replacing Department of Justice lawyers with their own appointees, as many Presidents have done before. The scandal was about the Bush Administration, particularly Gonzalez and Sampson, firing Bush-appointed lawyers who weren't "performing" well enough. There's a big difference. Especially since the DoJ is supposed to be nonpartisan, and the criterion for performance seemed to be whether or not you pursued indictments against Democrats before or after election-time. [abqjournal.com]
New Trial (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of dropping the charges, the DOJ should have asked for a new trial - which is exactly what Steven's attorneys were asking for.
No, the bullshit is that Don Siegleman is still a convict while Steven's walks. The prosecutorial misconduct was far, far, FAR, FAR worse in the case of the former governor than it was for the former senator. Just to start with, the prosecutor who went after Siegleman is married to the campaign manager of Siegleman's opponent.
LOL. (Score:3, Interesting)
No wonder Stevens got off the hook. When it comes to people in power, there is plenty of reason to believe that the law is more overly applied by
political opponents than it is applied at all.
Same thing with Obama's economic team.
Did the Sec-Treasury cheat on his taxes? Yeah, but, making a big circus out of it was overkill from a political opposition. I would only really be bitter about Obama's people getting all nazi-fied over taxes if they started nailing everyone else to the wall.
This was purposefully done (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember that the GOP controlled the Justice Department at this time. They did this on purpose to prevent Stevens from having to serve jail time. It's ingenious, especially since he was guilty as sin and they knew it.
Mod parent -1: Wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry, but you're wrong. [wikipedia.org]
However, it is incorrect to equate the Louisiana Civil Code with the Napoleonic Code. Although the Napoleonic Code strongly influenced Louisiana law, it was never in force in Louisiana, as it was enacted in 1804, after the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. While the Louisiana Civil Code of 1808 has been continuously revised and updated since its enactment, it is still considered the controlling authority in the state.
While it would have been true to say Louisiana's legal system is influenced by the Napoleonic code and is very different from the common law systems in all the other states, it's not the same thing as saying it uses Napoleonic code.
Hope you don't take offense for having this pointed out.
Re:Is He Guilty (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, my. How do you not understand just how critical presumed innocence is. Your examples miss the point entirely.
Cops presume innocence until presented with probable cause. Without presumption of innocence, search and seizure would be effectively unlimited.
Bail is set by judges after weighing the evidence presented preliminarily. Without presumption of innocence, why should there be bail at all?
OJ may very well be a murderer, but he is innocent. Considering him--or any other person acquitted of a crime--to be "guilty" just because you think so, is a shameful miscarriage of justice, much less decency.