The Wilkes Firestorm
Chrisc, who thankfully made it safely through the San Diego fires, didn’t let them distract her from the matter at hand: the Wilkes trial. Mark Geragos took the opportunity of a big natural disaster to sneak his client onto the stand to testify–apparently taking the government by surprise. I’ll review a few of the details, but I’d like to compare the account of Seth Hettena and that of Allison Hoffman. It’s a great example of why blogging (or non-"objective" reporting) can be more informative than traditional reporting. Hoffman, who has been doing a good job on this story, gives us the gist of Wilkes’ testimony: Geragos sprung Wilkes on the Prosecution, and Wilkes denied everything.
Defense contractor BrentWilkes emphatically denied bribing former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke"Cunningham Friday as he took the stand in his trial, which had beensuspended while wildfires ravaged Southern California.
Wilkes’attorney, Mark Geragos, surprised prosecutors by calling Wilkes on thefirst day of trial in a week. The lawyer had not warned them he wouldbe calling his client and had not hinted in earlier hearings thatWilkes would testify in his own defense.
But she doesn’t give us a full assessment of the effect of his testimony. Hettena, on the other hand, gives us a fair impression of the effect of Geragos’ surprise.
We were all curious what the government would do on cross, butGeragos’ maneuvering left Halpern with less than an hour to prepare. Itshowed. His questions were argumentative and off the mark. Severalattempts to impeach Wilkes failed because Halpern couldn’t get thedocuments he needed admitted as evidence.
[snip]
At other times, the prosecutor lost control of his witness. Heallowed Wilkes to trash the government’s witnesses and deliver aringing endorsement of earmarks:
Earmarks are not dirty things and earmarks are an alternative to a bureaucracy being in complete control of the budget.
Instead of challenging this (bridge to nowhere, anyone?) Halpern only rolled his eyes in disbelief.
It dawned on me that Halpern was trying to run out the clock,stalling until the end of the day so he could regroup and prepare for aproper cross. But in the meantime, he afforded Wilkes to connect withthe jury at the government’s expense. Jurors were cracking up atWilkes’ jokes and smiling when he shook his head at Halpern’squestioning.
Far be it for Geragos to miss the opportunity to use showmanship to try to win a case.
One thing Hettena doesn’t say in this post (though he has said it elsewhere). This trial–particularly the government’s case–has been putting the jury to sleep. It’s bad enough for Halpern’s case that he got caught unprepared. Still worse, though, that Wilkes’ testimony seems to be the highlight of the case so far.
Wilkes case was the only one heard by the courts on Friday. I think it may have caught others by surprise too. SDUT posted the AP report instead of an article by their own court reporter. It is really lucky for us that Seth showed up.
Whoops- Greg Moran does have an article in this morning’s paper although I did not yet find it in SDUT’s online page. Moran said that Wilkes â€spoke in firm tones and offered explanations for nearly every charge prosecutors have leveled.â€
there’s a bit more…
â€The second transaction involved a $525,000 payment to a company controlled by Thomas Kontogiannis, a friend of Cunningham’s. The government has tried to prove that the money was a bribe that was laundered so Cunningham could pay off a mortgage to his Rancho Santa Fe estate in spring 2004.
Wilkes, however, said the money was an investment that Cunningham suggested he make to get a short-term 9 percent interest return. He said he asked Cunningham if the congressman had any interest in the transaction and was told no. A few months later, Wilkes wrote a letter asking for the money back from the firm but never received it.â€
Thank you chrisc and ew. Wilkes won the jury over after Geragos gave him the opening, the prosecutor was off-balance and unprepared. If you’re Geragos, do you rest now or are there other elements of the prosecution’s case he must counter?
Well Neil, that is a pretty astute question actually. It is pretty rare that you would put your client, the defendant, on the stand early in the defense case for exactly what you alluded to. For one, once he has taken the stand, he has waived the 5th and is subject to further testimony. This can be problematic if your other defense witnesses give testimony that you need to counter with the defendant, but his testimony is already somewhat locked in by him having taken the stand early. You want the defendant, if he is to testify, to wrap all the loose ends and really paint the picture of innocence; can’t do that if the loose ends are not out on the record yet. Looks like another stunt to me; Geragos may have given the prosecution a small lemon with this surprise, but my guess is they will make some good lemonade with it before all is said and done. I think the defense knows they are screwed and just shot the only little wad they had.