DU, can you help me with something re: Ted Stevens

[leftist.]

He still did the things he was accused of doing, correct? If the trial was held again with a fair prosecution, would the result be the same? Or is there no way of knowing.

Thanks DU!

[napi21]

1. From all I've heard, the info the prosecution didn't reveal to the

defence was that the contractor once said the value of his work done for Ted was $200,000, and another time he said the value was $80,000. The acceptance of BIG DOLLAR favors was still done.

I don't know if you can look at back shows of Keith Olbermann & Rachel Maddow, but one of them had a guest on on Friday I think, and they were talking about this. The host asked if Stevens was still guilty, and the guest (she) said well, all I can tell you is that I saw the A-frame expansion with my own eyes, so what do you think I'm gonna believe.

[eleny]

2. It was on Countdown

I can't recall the guests name but she's the writer who wears the distinctive round glasses with the dark rims.

[polmaven]

3. Wasn't it Margaret Carlson?

Or am I thinking of someone else?

[Exilednight]

4. Go to MSNBC.com and you can find transcripts of the shows. n/t

[leftist.]

7. I'm digging around for it now.

Thanks to everyone for chipping in, I appreciate the information!

[quiller4]

5. Because so much of the evidence is tainted it is really

doubtful a prosecutor could get a conviction. If a prosecutor chose to go to trial again, a conviction would be unlikely.

There was prosecutorial misconduct in that the prosecutor did not share evidence with the defense including evidence that tended to prove Stevens innocent of the charges.

He may well have done some of the things he was charged with but one of the things the prosecutor did not share was extensive notes from one of the contractors regarding payments received from Stevens wife. In other words the prosecutors knew and did not share with the defense (or reveal to the jury) the fact that they held evidence of substantial Stevens' family payments for work done.

They also didn't share the fact that a prosecutorial witness had recanted much of his prior testimony and that digital and paper evidence supported the recanted testimony; not the original testimony.

It is quite likely is that the prosecutor could face charges and disbarrment.

None of that means Stevens is innocent; only that proving him guilty of the original charges would be most unlikely.

[leftist.]

6. This is great information, thank you! (n/t)

[Samantha]

8. Stevens had also written a note to one of the contractors

saying to make sure he (Stevens) was charged appropriately for all the work. He said he didn't want to have any problems down the road similar to ones another legislator had had for not paying for work that had been done. This note was among the the prosecution team files, but they withheld it from the defense. The Justice Department called this exculpatory evidence which should definitely have been shared with the defense.

Additionally, the contractor knew the first quote on the value of the work done was a gross exaggeration of its worth; that is why in subsequent testimony he later lowered the value to the true worth. The prosecution again was aware of this but again withheld its knowledge.

Margaret Carlyson omitted this info in her subsequent interview on this subject.

Sam