What is the deal with Holder trying to get Ted Steven's conviction overturned?

[arcadian]

And is it likely to be overturned? This is outrageous. Zero accountability in Washington D.C and Wall Street. Zero. The more things change the more they... oh fuck, what's the point in even pointing it out anymore?

[ThomWV]

1. Nope, it is Steven's lawyers who will have it overturned, while Holder watches

and does nothing. Remember, Stevens is guilty. Never forget that. He took bribes in the form of additions to his house and he did not report it as required by law. Guilty.

[Political Tiger]

2. So you're for prosecutorial misconduct? n/t

[mucifer]

3. It's the law. The prosecuters broke the law in how they tried the case.

Holder is doing his job. Just watch he started with this case so he can go to cases like Spiegalman and not look like a political hack like the bushies.

[bbinacan]

4. Prosecutorial misconduct. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. He's following the law, which is exactly what he should do.

The prosecutors committed clear misconduct by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense as the Constitution requires (Brady v. U.S.). Stevens is a corrupt old asshole, but the prosecution screwed up the case. Holder was legally and ethically bound to dismiss it.

[arcadian]

10. So is there going to be another trial?

What if the Bush Justice Department threw the case knowing that Stevens would walk lter?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. No, once it's been dismissed it's over.

Anyhow, old Ted is in his 80s, probably would be a waste of time to start all over again.

[H2O Man]

22. The misconduct

compromised the DoJ's ability to win the case if it went to trial again.

[fascisthunter]

27. H2O, do you think the Prosecutors screwed up on purpose?

I see comments regarding the Prosecutors having been Bush appointed. Is this just tin foil?

[elleng]

29. The 'screw up' was the kind of thing

for which attorneys could be sanctioned in many ways. Such a purposeful screw up is HIGHLY unlikely, imo.

[NewJeffCT]

44. Probably a competence screw-up

since most Bushies were recruited out of blind partisan loyalty rather than any sort of actual competence.

[H2O Man]

31. Anything is possible.

At this point, I'm not in a position to venture an opinion on if that is likely. I have to read some more.

Sometimes misconduct is done by one or more people who are simply looking to promote themselves. That is, in my opinion, the most common type. The second most common is when someone who is self-righteous believes they are entitled to "do whatever it takes." Both of these types really throw a wrench in the system, and do a heck of a lot of harm.

Though not nearly as frequent would be a person who purposely infects the system, in order to compromise it. Though I hate to say this, I think that there are snakes in the DoJ who would be capable of doing so. It would have to be someone at a fairly high level, or else supervision would have caught it.

If anyone doubts that there is systematic corruption in the DoJ, they should look at the early mishandling of the neocon/AIPAC espionage trial.

[fascisthunter]

34. thank you... I just Don't Know Enough

but from reading your posts, I figured asking you would be worth my while. It was...

[Old and In the Way]

38. Of course that begs the question...why did they pursue the case in the 1st place?

Probably was too much evidence to overlook...the Grand Jury must have thought so. I could understand the Bush DoJ leaning hard to derail this in the initial stages, but I doubt the prosecutors would willingly ruin their reputation in the process. I really don't know much about the prosecutors...you'd think they'd be pretty well known, given the guy they were gunning for.

[Canuckistanian]

28. Doesn't this also compromise the DoJ's ability to win ANY case?

Does the prosecution team not face any consequences for prosecutorial misconduct?

So they're just working on the next case and all is forgiven?

[H2O Man]

32. Good question.

There need to be consequences for misconduct. And that doesn't mean a stern warning. It means that heads should roll. You have to remove corrupt officials in the same manner that a surgeon removes a tumor. Get it all, or the tumor grows back.

[elleng]

33. Not likely.

'Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ably presided over the trial and several times castigated the prosecutors for similar failures. He held four prosecutors in contempt of court this year and was considering further action when the Justice Department declared its intention to drop the case against Mr. Stevens.

The decision could not have been easy for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who cut his teeth as a prosecutor in the very same Public Integrity Section. But it was the right call. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is investigating the trial prosecutors, and, although such proceedings are typically not made public, the department has agreed to share the results with Judge Sullivan. The department should also consider making them available to the public, which is entitled to know whether law enforcement officers gamed the system to guarantee a conviction.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040102976.html?hpid=topnews

[Canuckistanian]

36. Oh, yes, I remember now

There was a great backlash against the prosecution lawyers after the verdict.

There were even some cries of "foul" from the usual apologists.

Seems like they had some justification.

[elleng]

16. Hi, Oce!

.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. Hi!

:hi:

[katanalori]

17. IMO

The Bush-appointed prosecutors did it on purpose (in cahoots with Bush Adinistration) - the prosecutors wanted Stevens to get off and screwed up the prosecution intentionally.

[MadMaddie]

23. I just don't think they had the capability to have the forethought

to get Stevens off on a technicality. I think they were simply inept and incompetent.

[babylonsister]

6. Trust me. This is a good thing. Holder is righting a wrong. nt

[spanone]

7. bu$h* justice boys fucked this up big time, not President Obama's man

[AZ Criminal JD]

8. These were Justice career professionals

They still work there and now are "Obama's men".

[Thrill]

12. and thats why they were taken off the case and likely to be fired.

[Ocracoker16]

25. fired and banned from practicing law

I don't like Stevens very much myself. However, it would be unethical for the DOJ to hide the illegal actions of the prosecution. Holder is simply doing his job. He is not trying to go out of his way to help Ted Stevens. He has to follow the law and report misconduct even if the individual involved is a jerk who is a Republican.

[elleng]

13. and will probably have more than their wrists slapped.

.

[stillcool]

35. The trial prosecutors are being investigated..

if that means anything to you. I wonder how that Special Prosecutor is doing with the Attorney General firing scandal?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040102976.html?hpid=topnews

'Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ably presided over the trial and several times castigated the prosecutors for similar failures. He held four prosecutors in contempt of court this year and was considering further action when the Justice Department declared its intention to drop the case against Mr. Stevens.

The decision could not have been easy for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who cut his teeth as a prosecutor in the very same Public Integrity Section. But it was the right call. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is investigating the trial prosecutors, and, although such proceedings are typically not made public, the department has agreed to share the results with Judge Sullivan. The department should also consider making them available to the public, which is entitled to know whether law enforcement officers gamed the system to guarantee a conviction.'

[AZ Criminal JD]

41. I run into this all the time

but on a smaller scale than the Stevens case. I have little faith that they will have more than their wrists slapped. They will be probably told to hide it better the next time.

[dragonlady]

15. And most likely they did it on purpose

Creating grounds to have any conviction overturned on appeal to spare Stevens spending any time in prison.

[elleng]

9. Holder is right.

Apparently the Stevens prosecution was ANOTHER of the breaches of legal propriety which occurred during w's rain.

'Gross breaches of law and fairness by prosecutors are the reason that Mr. Stevens will walk free. The Justice Department admitted that the lawyers from the Public Integrity Section who put Mr. Stevens on trial failed to turn over to defense lawyers information about contradictory statements by a key prosecution witness. An agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who worked on the case also recently alleged that prosecutors had been willfully withholding pertinent evidence from the defense team.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040102976.html?hpid=topnews

[Thrill]

11. Oh get real. Its called up holding the law. You want to be convicted of something

if the Prosecutors were up to shady business. You have the right to a fair trial. Whether you're a Republican or Democrat. You can't be ok with it for Stevens and pissed about it with Siegelman

[arcadian]

14. Hey, I only heard a blurb about it on the radio this afternoon.

"Get real" :eyes:

[MadMaddie]

20. If it were you or me and the prosecution didn't turn over all of the

supposed evidence they had against us and then we were convicted, we would want the case thrown out. That is the beauty of American law we have the right to see the all of the evidence that is being held against us.

This is not about partisan politics, Stevens probably did break the law several times but now the case is tainted by the previous inept and corrupt, incompetent DOJ.

Don't blame Holder he is doing the right thing even though many of us think that Stevens is walking away. +

[arcadian]

24. If it were you or I you wouldn't have a corrupt prosecution throwing the case either.

n/t

[MadMaddie]

30. As inept as the * admin was, especially the DOJ I honestly

don't believe they had the skill or forethought to fuck up this bad. I think they were just utter failures and felt they could get away with anything.

[customerserviceguy]

21. In any case

Senator "Bridge to Nowhere" is now retired from the Senate, the few miserable years he might have spent in prison (how long do they send you up for minor bribery, anyway?) mean nothing to me. He'll likely be dead before Mark Begich's term is up, and if we had not had the trial, we might have Caribou Barbie appointing herself to that seat.

I can live with the result.

By the way, love your graphic, it's funny!

[TexasProgresive]

42. Palin could not appoint anyone

That was changed in Alaskan law after the former governor appointed his daughter to fill his vacated seat.

[customerserviceguy]

43. That's right, I forgot

But she could have put her name on the ballot, and been haunting around D.C. that way. We dodged a bullet with Begich's election no matter how you look at it.

[merh]

26. Here, Horton's article is pretty good on this

April 1, 10:50 AM
Justice on Stevens

Attorney General Eric Holder has decided that the Justice Department should abandon the corruption conviction secured against former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. The bombshell decision has nothing to do with the merits of the case against Stevens–it stems from a recognition that the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section behaved unethically in the conduct of the case—withholding vital evidence from the defense, among other things. Holder is himself a former Public Integrity prosecutor. He made the right call in the Stevens case.

In “Public Indecency,” my column in the American Lawyer out today, I survey the growing list of misconduct allegations against the Public Integrity Section. The Stevens prosecution is only one of roughly two dozen cases in which similar charges have been made on a credible level–collectively they make plain that an ethically-challenged “victory at all costs” mentality is now well entrenched there. Judge Sullivan, presiding over the Stevens case, asked an important question: “Does the Public Integrity Section have any integrity?” By referring the Stevens matter to the Office of Professional Responsibility for an investigation and possible internal disciplinary action—in addition to the sanctions that Judge Sullivan is promising—Holder makes clear that he appreciates the gravity of the damage done to the department’s reputation during the Bush era.

Holder’s difficult decision was essential, but it was only a first step. The Stevens prosecution was undertaken just as the Justice Department was coming under sustained fire from Congress and the media over a pattern of political prosecutions. The misconduct by prosecutors in the Stevens case, bad as it was, is trivial compared to what went on in a number of other political prosecutions which have been profiled here–the Siegelman case, the prosecutions of Paul Minor and two Mississippi judges, and the prosecution of Cyril Wecht.

All of these cases cry out for prompt investigation. Holder has taken the right first step. But much remains to be done if the Justice Department is to win back its reputation for integrity in politically-tinged cases. Restoring that reputation should be a top priority for Holder. Today he signals that it is a top priority.

http://www.harpers.org/subjects/NoComment

[Old and In the Way]

39. I wonder if the Stevens decision paves the way for the Seigelman case to get tossed?

It sure would be difficult for Republicans to attack this DoJ after showing their willingness to right a wrong against a Republican Senator (OK, it was only wrong in the sense of the misconduct, the underlining facts still indicate that Stevens was bought).

[merh]

40. Maybe that is Holder's method behind his madness

it will dampen the repugs' reactions to his decisions to not pursue Seigelman and Minor and others who were victims of the politicizing of the DOJ.

Of course, there are the nit-wit righties on other boards that are blaming Stevens' prosecutions and the misconduct of the prosecutors on the dems. I swear they are loons.

[OwnedByFerrets]

37. My ONLY hope is that it was a set up for things to come....

such as the overturning of Gov Don Siegelmans Rovian conviction.