Is this the same Sullivan that was Ollie North’s lawyer in front of Congress? is there anyway for charges to be refiled once Obama becomes President? I wonder what that fraud named Cass Sunstein would say about this.

Sure looks like Monica Goodling’s hiring practices (party over competence) are coming home to roost.

While I am more inclined to think they are throwing the game on purpose, it really could be just another example of rampant incompetence in the Bush Administration.

The question is can this be taken up by a competent prosecutor (at this point after election) or will it become a case of double jeopardy where Stevens is in the clear for good?

I’m having trouble here with this passage:

The new evidence involved an interview that had been turned over to the defense, but the key part of what Allen said — that the couple would pay if they had been sent a bill — had been blacked out.

This says to me that this was NO accident. Whomever blacked that out knew darned well that it was Brady evidence.

I don’t normally go looking for black helicopters, but I think I want a look into the finances of whomever did that redaction.

Boxturtle (Much as I believe Stevens is guilty, if no Black helicopter is found this case should be tossed)

This is lawyering by the Department of Just Us. I agree with those who believe this was an “intentional screw-up”. And 6 months from now, I want to know where each of the prosecution lawyers are working and what their salaries are.

I don’t want to point to anything written here by folks who can honestly say IANAL, but the lead prosecutor’s background, as well as what she is reported to have said in the direction of the defendant Stevens, is at the very least ambivalent, and [not being there to see and hear is very limiting] actually suggests she is perfectly aware of what has gone on here.

I’m guessing […], but it strikes me there is more than one way to say what she has been reported as saying EG another would be: Well, it’s pretty clear Senator STEVENS at least has been able to get a “fair” trial; I only wish the same could be said for the GOVERNMENT! Or a worse EG: It’s clear the DEFENDANT’S right to a “fair hearing” isn’t being abrogated here; but I’m getting the sense that he’s not the one on trial here: I am!

This next part might seem way OTT, but I’ve actually had it happen, and more than once: where someone on the opposing side determines to play fast and loose with evidence [and in this context, I would include evidence as to what was disclosed, or even the form in which the disclosure was made]. This possibility would be in addition to what bmaz referred to, quite properly, being that it’s far from unusual that the physical steps involved in providing disclosure, or some of them, are left to juniors, or even clerical workers.

Let’s assume the prosecutor determines to have some disclosure hand-delivered by courier, so as to secure a receipt. She, or he, typically would review the disclosure to be enclosed with the delivery, and dictate a cover letter that refers to the enclosures [We saw several such letters in the trial of Libby; again, they are more the rule than the exception.] Then when the letter is ready for signature, the prosecutor [typically] would sign it and leave on the desk of her or his secretary [or clerk ON THAT CASE, which often happens with prosecutors just in town for the conduct of the trial], or in the appropriate office worker’s “out” basket for deliveries – and, at least in my own experience, with no particular regard to whether the package is sealed before being put there.

Now in that scenario there is lots of room for mischief before the package gets in the hands of the firm where the defendant’s trial lawyer is working. If that were to happen, very often a defending lawyer will write or call back on the subject of the redaction, based simply on there being no mention of it in the cover letter. Of course, if defending counsel were to see the redaction and note the lack of any mention of it in the cover letter, the defending counsel might well consider keeping his [or her] yap shut; it’s borderline, and usually all it gets is a recesss, and as often as a given judge may be as least as hard on defending counsel for trying to take advantage, so there’s risks involved.

Moreover, so long as defending counsel is aware of the inability of the prosecutor to gainsay the possibility of the redaction having occurred in the prosecutor’s office, I can’t see what would forestall the accusation even where unfounded.

And it may not even be known to defending counsel to be “unfounded”.

On one prosecution I was on a goodly number of years back, during a break court security caught one of the defendants attempting to pass a powerful magnet over the reel-to-reel tapes used to memorialize some wiretapped calls critical to the government’s case, on some notion of his counsel trapping the custodian with not being able to verify the accuracy of the transcription [Sounds stupid, but lots of serious criminals are familiar with the general idea but not the nuances of things like chain of custody and forensic analysis; and quite frankly there are judges who are not much if any further ahead of them]. Now, you might think the mastermind kept his cock-eyed scheme to himself and would never have shared it with- or cooked it up with- his very experienced lawyer; and indeed that’s what I assumed for almost a decade after- until the lawyer and his by-then ‘paroled’ client, who was at that point said to be ‘associated’ with the lawyer in what looked a lot like a private investigator capacity [without any licence] were jointly indicted, and later convicted, on an elaborate scheme best described in the terms of the indictment: assault, kidnapping, extortion, fraud, all while possessing and using stolen handguns; and at the subsequent disbarment proceedings, which were actually the subject of a trial [!}, there was evidence led of the two of them having falsified or participated in the falsification of evidence in a number of cases over the ensuring years. [At various times over the last two decades, at least, the Boswash corridor has been [sorry] awash with such associations; indeed, the Hartford prosecutor on the CIA tapes case made his bones on some of the nastier ones.

So: an awful lot of things are possible here; and I’m not inclined to foreclose any of them.

This was a deliberate sabotage of a case the Justice Dept never wanted to bring in the first place. You’d have to be a moron to doubt that. Every first year law student knows about Brady material. In a case so high-profile, a mistake of this nture would never be made by accident. If the judge orders a mistrial with prejudice, the corrupt Justice Dept gets exactly what it wants, another crony getting off the hook. A dismissal without prejudice to re-file would be the more appropriate response to a deliberate proscutorial sabotage of this nature. The issue is, where would be the resulting prejudice to Stevens ability to defend himself in the second trial? I really don’t see any in practical terms. Theses Bush people should all be killed, after torture IMHO.

Gosh, I just can’t imagine the Bush Justice Department screwing up a case against one of the most powerful GOPs in the Senate, can you?

The judge should seek to review the prosecution’s notes, e-mails, etc. It’s pretty clear they wouldn’t have done this if there wasn’t authorization and there’s likely records of that. Just like the USA firings and all the other corruption, it’s in their internal e-mails and other records.

The prosecution should offer to let them look at anything and everything. If they truly made a mistake and want the judge to know that, then they should say ‘look at everything. look at all the records. review to your heart’s content.’

One caveat: don’t think they’ll let you see everything. You can dig forever and not get to the bottom. That’s the way they work.

If it were me I’d say look at my elementary school records, my college transcript, my CIA file, my FBI file, my dental records, my medical records, etc. As the Sting song goes, you can read my CV and you still won’t know me.

But, at least the judge should peek.

If there is deliberate Prosecutorial misconduct, then I should imagine the Judge would not look kindly upon it. Even if the trial goes forward, this is not a ’slap-on-the-wrist’ situation, there should at least be a visit to the cloakroom …

What will Judge Sullivan do? I should think Professor Morris might have ‘looked into’ the situation before asserting that Steven’s was getting a ‘fair’ trial.

Prosecutorial malfeasance OUGHT to be one of the most heavily ‘punished’ destructive behaviors in the courtroom.

And, if such malfeasamce was orchestrated or ‘encouraged’ from ‘outside’ the Prosecution ‘team’, then there needs to be a follow up to establish such fact and pursue, very seriously, those involved.

I am not holding my breath in anticipation.

The law is being made mock of and the legal community had best decide just how much Bull Shit they are willing to tolerate, explain that to the rest of us, (and themselves) and acknowledge that the ‘rule of law’ is, at best, a sometime thing, and further, that the quality of ‘justice’ that most people receive is directly proportional to the size of their wallet and how well they are liked by those in power.

Is there an attorney in this country, anywhere, who ‘believes’ they can dispute the reality of these assertions? Bring ‘em on.

Like all things the LAW is a ‘work in progress(?)’ and subject to the visititudes of fate. At present, however,it runs the very real possibilty of becoming a joke.

I do NOT say that happily, but with great despair, I do not say that cynically, but because. I. care.

In a democracy, when it is under severe and deadly threat, should not lawyers be among the first in the streets? I can think of a somewhat recent example in another country, far more brutal and unstable than our own, where the lawyers actually stood (at some considerable risk to themselves, one might imagine) against tyranny AND for ‘the rule of law’.