In the Case of Ted Stevens: Dropped Charges Do Not Equal Innocence
It astounds me how many TV bobbleheads are ignorant of the fact that dropping charges does not exonerate Ted Steven. They're just so eager to proclaim his innocence, I guess because they're too lazy to figure out the difference. What else is new?
Mr. Stevens’s chief lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, said of his client: “His name is cleared. He is innocent of the charges as if they had never been brought.”
Prof. Joshua Dressler of the Ohio State University law school said, however, that the failure to be convicted in a criminal trial does not, by itself, confer innocence on someone.
“The decision by the judge to dismiss the case is certainly not a statement that the defendant is innocent,” Professor Dressler said, “but that the prosecutors didn’t play by the rules, and for that reason alone we have to use this strong remedy” to deter other prosecutors from similar misbehavior.
In fact, two jurors have said that the dismissal of the case because of the prosecutors’ actions did not make Mr. Stevens innocent in their view.
Brian Kirst, an alternate juror in the trial, said the prosecutors’ problems had nothing to do with much of the testimony that mattered to him. “I mean he had the chair,” said Mr. Kirst, a professional photographer.
He said he was strongly leaning toward conviction — though he did not participate in the verdict because he was randomly deemed an alternate — because he believed that the defense had done little to rebut the basic accusations that Mr. Stevens had been given lots of gifts and never reported them.
Colleen Walsh, one of the jurors who convicted Mr. Stevens, said on her personal blog of the trial’s collapse, “The only thing this proves is that the prosecution messed everything up.”
Ms. Walsh, a church secretary, wrote on the blog as if speaking to Mr. Stevens, saying: “You may be innocent on corruption charges which were never brought up. But you are still guilty of not disclosing some of your major gifts to the public.”
Most of the prosecutors’ mistakes involved the handling of Bill Allen, a chief witness against Mr. Stevens who, the government said, provided some $250,000 worth of goods and services to upgrade the senator’s Alaska residence. Prosecutors failed to provide defense lawyers with interview notes in which Mr. Allen told them that he believed Mr. Stevens would have paid for things if he had been sent a bill and that the renovations were worth only about $80,000.
Hey, we should have expected that the fools on the right would want to say that Stevens is innocent. and remember, these are the same people who cried "letter of the law" when it came to Clinton. Sweet Jesus I Hate Republicans!
fuck up the trial and it is a democratic justice dept that steps up to the plate and overturns the conviction.
Too bad Nixion resigned before having his sorry ass dragged thru impeachment.
"Let's talk dirty to the animals"
Guess you didn't get the message that he was pardoned by President Ford..
Couldn't have old Tricky Dickie being found guilty. Now could we.
That's why he resigned in disgrace. Or did you happen to miss that day in history class.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
What's ancient history have to do with these recent events.??
Look it up if it stumps you.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" - Red Green
Freedom Ain't Free - Pay Your Share
I just stumbled on that comment about Ford pardoning Nixon.
I remember all of that.
Hey, have at it. Your doing fine.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
... that the pardon came after the resignation.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
He could have been charged with criminal activity but for the pardon, after he left office. Impeachment is costly and takes a long time...
But I also think that you and Mr. Green Jeans agree (at least on Nixon).
Corruption favors the wealthy.
It was Nixon. Followed by Bush2. Then Bush 1, then Reagan. Then Clinton for lying under oath. In that order.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Then Tricky Dick, then Reagan. I'd drop Clinton because I don't believe he did lie under oath, and I also might drop the elected Bush - except he did do plenty to cover up for Reagan.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
You can't do it. He lied. Is that grounds for impeachment? Not to me.
But I'll give them that one just because of what BC did to the Democratic party and people in this country.
He made us all look bad. For such a brilliant man, he sure was one stupid mofo. GWB, yes, he can take the honors of 1st place. But you have to remember Watergate, Laos, Cambodia. and calling out the national guard violating Posse Comutas. ( sorry, I can't remember how to spell that one)
So I give the honors to Nixon. I won't bother to bring up Agnew.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
... I say bother all you like with Agnew. :)
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I'm not arguing whether or not Clinton lied under oath - he did.
But few people realize that lying under oath is NOT the same as perjury. All perjury is a lie, not all lies are perjury.
In order to be perjury, the lie must be in regards to a material matter in a judicial proceeding. If you are asked a question that has no bearing on the matter at hand, it is NOT legally perjury if you lie.
In Clinton's case, the matter at hand was whether or not he had sexually harassed Paula Jones. He lied about a consensual affair with Monica Lewinsky, a relationship that occurred many years later. His relationship with Lewinsky has absolutely nothing to do with the incident with Jones. The question would never have been allowed if the case had actually gone to court, because it's irrelevant, and the perjury charge should never have been filed.
Also, the judge had specifically excluded, er, kazoo playing from the definition of "sexual relations."
But materiality is definitely key.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
on the kazoo.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Who pushed it?
What's all the negativism and hate speech about???
Beck, aren't you paying attention. Or is it Soros? I forget.
Now where did I leave my tea bag, dammit.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
To bad our system doesn't permit the Scottish Verdict - - not proven, eh ??
A very powerful Senator is caught red-handed, and the prosecution just happens to screw it up?
Sure.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Don't forget whose Justice Department was running this show, fiver.
They withheld evidence they were by law obligated to disclose, they did a lot of really unethical stuff that should bring a couple of them (at least) before the Bar and lose their license. Holder called it the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he's ever seen.
Considering how the US Attorneys were pressured to go after Democrats, even with trumped up charges, I don't think you should be surprised that they so massively screwed up in prosecuting a Republican.
It's like a boxer who doesn't take an obvious dive but deliberately keeps his left down knowing it will cost him the fight.
The prosecution sure didn't make such obvious "mistakes" when going after a Democratic governor. And there was no need to withhold this stuff. Stevens was caught dead to rights. They just happened to give him a very easy way out.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
The Bush Justice Department didn't want to go after one of their own. Why would they want to risk sending a Republican to jail?
It's far better for the party to send a Democratic governor like Don Siegelman to jail than a Republican Senator.
Stephens is guilty as hell. But now, thanks to prosecutorial misconduct, he is free and he can claim vindication. Within a very few years most Americans will not remember that he was guilty.
This prosecutorial "screw up" was not an accident.
And as long as Jon Stewart, C&L, and others still have access to Stevens' video, some of us will remember.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
he wouldn't have lasted through the trials.
Part of me thinks he is really just a muppet with various defense contractors at the controls.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
The judge said he'd never seen such prosecutorial misconduct, and named a special prosecutor to determine whether criminal charges should be brought against six lawyers on the prosecution team.
NYT: Tables Turned on Prosecution in Stevens Case
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
Rove? Cheney? Bush?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Its like if you rob a convenience store but don't get it on tape then you're innocent.....only in this case, they even had him on tape!
from the Busheviks to a loyal soldier.
The prosecutorial misconduct wouldn't have effected the decision of te jury.
it was a security-blanket, get-out-of-jail going-away present for Stevens.
I'll believe Obama/Holder is about justice when the conviction of Don Siegelman is overturned.,..
So is O.J.
n/t
and he cut his hand trying to get his fish statue back from the memorabilia dealers.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Stevens' lawyer was Brendan Sullivan, counsel to Oliver
North in the infamous arms deals.
I wonder who else he's been defending these many years.
The Holder DOJ took into account Steven's 1)Age and 2)Loss of his position on the matter of re-trying him.
IF he decides to pursue public office again, either Mulkaski's (sp?) Senate seat or Palin's governorship (although I would love to see THAT cat fight) CAN THEY RE-TRY HIM FOR HIS FAILURE TO DISCLOSE GIFTS? I don't think double-jeopardy would apply, since charges were dismissed, not that he was acquitted. But were charges dismissed WITH PREJUDICE (meaning he can't be re-tried)?
Does anyone KNOW for sure? Thanks in advance.
I think technically this can be called a mistrial, so he could be tried again without double-jeopardy.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
But that point is moot since the Attorney General is dropping the case.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
...I really think it's time to let this go. The DOJ screwed the pooch on this case and Stevens has not been convicted of anything. It is entirely possible that in the absence of prosecutorial misconduct Stevens could have won acquittal. Since he was deprived of a fair trial he is entitled to have his presumption of innocence back.
That doesn't mean that private individuals can't make personal determinations for themselves, but publicly Stevens should be considered innocent. The presumption of innocence -- an important element in US jurisprudence -- has been largely abandoned as people are constantly being tried in the media before a jury has even been empaneled. I don't think commentators should do more than acknowledge that for practical purposes Stevens is back in presumed innocent status and will never be tried on these charges. It is perfectly fair for voters to draw their own conclusions about his character (I have and my verdict is not favorable to Stevens), but I think lefty bloggers should give this a rest. It seems incredibly unlikely that Stevens will ever seek elective office again (he is, after all, 185 years old, or almost that old). He isn't going to jail on these charges, he isn't going to pay a fine, or suffer any other penalty. So, I think it's really a huge waste of time to worry about what the talking idiots say about him one way or another.
If Don Siegelman were to have his conviction overturned, I have no doubt that right wingers would continue to harp on his "conviction," but I would object to that too.
Susie, if you want something to be really outraged about, why not focus on the abhorrent stance Obama has taken on state secrets (and related issues). This is far worse than anything Stevens (sleazy crook that he may be) ever did. I'm appalled at how little outrage there is coming from the Left about Obama's criminal stance on constitutional issues. If I were in the House, I would be pushing to begin impeachment proceedings against Obama. Of course, that will never happen, because Democrats are nearly as unprincipled and corrupt as the Republicans.
I would hope that the threat of impeachment would force Obama to change his position, but if that failed, I would proceed, and, if necessary, remove him from office. I would have favored that course for Bush, and I see no reason to feel differently about Obama just because I was a delegate for him, gave money to his campaign, and worked to get him elected. I consider this the biggest political betrayal of my life (and I'm nearing Medicare age).
Who gives a damn about Ted Stevens when the president is continuing to shred the Constitution?
Although your post has signs of a republican post...
I agreed with you that the left should attack Obama with the same vigor and more for his lack of upholding his oath to uphold our constitution by not prosecuting Bush and Cheney's administration for the crimes to our constitution and war crimes. AND for his farther erosion of our freedom , rights and constitution.
But flipping off Siegelman by not looking into his case which shows multiple corruptions by Bush's right arm using Rove and other republicans in the state of Alabama is a sign that Obama is working for the other side of the street which is the corporate republicans..
At this point of am totally disgusted with Obama and his democrat leaders which are advising him on the policies..
If Bush would be making the same decisions which Obama is taking the democrat's web site would be lit up with rage..
It now looks as if the democrat party exist only on paper...
None
Although there's a presumption of innocense, he has been found guilty by a jury; there's no evidence since the Fed is dropping the case that that verdict would be overturned, so the only change all the monkeyshines on the prosecutor's part is doing is precluding any sanctions.
He could even run for office again, but I wonder how many people would vote for him?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
By the attorney general's dropping of Ted Stevens conviction and his arrogant refusal to look into Don Siegelman case makes one wonder if Obama is really a democrat and the republicans are play acting a script.
Obama has done more for the advancement of Bush's and the corporate republicans policies then the policies of the democratic party..
None
I figured that weasely little bastard would've been basting over some BBQ pit in hell by now. Last I heard of him, he was screaming about not being a "potted plant" while seated next to that godawful little war criminal and kinkmeister Ollie North.
Ah, well! Only the good die young. If that's the standard, Brendan Sullivan will outlive us all.
No wonder then that the miserable little mouthpiece would be spouting some flatulence about Ted Stevens' name being cleared.
"Go and get me a bucket. I'm going to throw up!"
IMHO it just indicates in no uncertain terms that the Justice Dept. under George W Bush was so corrupted and so deficient in skill that his happens. Why isn't anyone hounding GWB asking him how he could allow the DOJ to be so ineffectual?
Why ask Bush? You know what the answer will be.
Sorry, Susie, but you're wrong here. Stevens may be guilty as sin, but he cannot be prosecuted through prosecutorial incompetence/malfeasance. And as such, he is PRESUMED INNOCENT. He may be guilty as sin, but he's presumed innocent just like anyone who walks into a court prior to conviction. If he cannot be convicted, so be it. But he cannot be presumed guilty. That's against everything we believe in.
Stevens may be a Republican and we may want to see him nailed to the wall, but we can't forget the basics of our democracy: innocent until PROVEN guilty.
And the two are not the same thing.
Stevens is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. That does not mean that people cannot decide for themselves whether or not he is guilty.
And maybe it's worth pointing out yet again - dismissal of the charges due to prosecutorial misconduct is NOT the same as declaring that someone is innocent. It only proves that the prosecution did not play by the rules.
Not guilty is close enough to innocent. Just ask Ollie North.
ted stevens, like all americans, is presumed innocent until proven guilty. therefore, dropped charges do equal innocence. this is the way our justice system works.
as we see on this fine post,its really difficult to convict a rich,influential person who is well represented.in the stevens case the prosecution violated the duty to provide the defense with exculpatory evidence-that by itself results in overturning the conviction,and doj dropping the charges altogether.there is none of that pesky appellate claptrap about whether the verdict would have been different if the jury knew that the senator's buddy was confident that stevens would have paid the bills in question if they had been sent.thats fine,a criminal conviction is SUPPOSED to be difficult to attain.
however,please consider the case of a working class black man on ga's death row since 1991.troy davis has been trying to get an evidentiary hearing on innocence for decades.he has also been trying to get a habeas hearing from the supreme court.his life may depend on a throwaway line from the 1993 herrera decision which may be an end around the effective death penalty act of 1996.the justice writing for the majority in that case sniffed that if there were really persuasive evidence of innocence,execution would be unconstitutional-the 1996 law does not allow the claim of innocence standing alone.
in the davis case there is no physical evidence linking him to the murder,and no murder weapon has ever been found.the case is based on eyewitness testimony-however 7 of the 9 prosecution witnesses have recanted and one of the others is the alternate suspect.no jury has ever heard testimony from witnesses who now state that their testimony was the product of coercion,and prosecutorial misconduct.what is the test for obtaining an new evidentiary hearing in ga? according to gary schneck of the innocence project davis must overcome the "doctrine of the slightest contradiction."this means troy can get his hearing if he shows that the evidence could not possibly been available at trial,and if it had been,it would have made conviction impossible-troy davis was born too late to have murdered the lindbergh baby.in other words the evidence would render an evidentiary hearing a mere formality.the legal system is much more class based than most advantaged whites would ever suspect. that goes for the cases,statutes,let alone the procedures.please check the amnesty international to get a more detailed version of the troy davis case.thanks.
Comments are closed on this entry