Mike's Blog

Glad the Justice Department isn't withholding evidence

Except it is. A-ha! I bet you didn't see that little twist coming. The clever title must have thrown you off completely.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration's first major post-Sept. 11 prosecution, which broke up a terrorist cell in Detroit, is in danger of unraveling after the Justice Department divulged it had failed to turn over evidence that might have helped the defense.

The evidence includes a letter from an imprisoned drug gang leader who alleges the government's key witness confided he made up some of his story.

The December 2001 letter, which could have been used by defense lawyers to challenge the prosecution witness during the trial this spring, wasn't turned over until a couple of weeks ago.

The defendants are now asking that their convictions be overturned, and the judge has scheduled an emergency hearing Friday to demand an explanation from the government.

"It has come to the attention of the court that the government has recently provided defendants with certain material that was not provided to defendants either prior to or during trial of this matter," U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen said in ordering the hearing.

Senior law enforcement officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday the Justice Department is concerned how the judge will rule and will acknowledge that its prosecutors erred.

Gee i don't know. Do you think the prosecutors might have erred?

This kind of thing is supposed to get one disbarred. But I'm going to guess it will all be swept under the rug. Justice at work.

Talkleft has more:

The lead prosecutor, Richard Covertino, and another AUSA in the case have been replaced. Covertino's lawyer, former AUSA William Sullivan, acknowledges that his client intentionally withheld the letter.

Convertino's lawyer said he believes that his client made the right decision in not disclosing the letter because it wouldn't have affected the trial's outcome.

Is that really the best excuse this asshole can come up with? I'm going to start using that one at work. "Hey sorry. I know you think this is a big case but I deliberately withheld those documents from you because I didn't think it would affect the outcome of the case." Jesus.

And of couse, the legal carnival wouldn't be complete without the King monkey clown riding in on his unicycle, leading a throng of cacaphonous, feces-smelling jungle dwellers, all shrieking in panic while the king monkey wears a purple unitard and blows a gilded magic horn, the music of which...okay.... that image got away from me a little bit there. Just read it:

This case was plagued by misconduct from the get-go. Attorney General John Ashcroft got in trouble early on by vouching for the credibility of Hmimssa during the trial. Not only were his comments improper, (ethical rules prohibit prosecutors from giving their opinion on the quality of evidence in an ongoing case--see, for example, rules 3.6 and 3.8 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct ), but it was the second time, according to defense counsel, Ashcroft violated a gag order in the case. The Judge stated at the time:

I was distressed to see the attorney general commenting in the middle of a trial about the credibility of a witness who had just gotten off the stand," [Judge]Rosen said. Later, Rosen added, "The attorney general is subject to the orders of this court. ... The attorney general has specifically been put on notice about the scope of its gag order."

The defense filed a motion to hold Ashcroft in contempt. The motion was held in abeyance until after the trial.

What kind of country allows John Ashcroft to become the most powerful attorney in the land? Does he even bother to pretend that he respects due process anymore? Again, law license...why does he still have one?

I hope my secret trial goes better than this.

AP Report (yes i know it's old. busy. busy.)

TalkLeft Commentary

Posted by mike at December 30, 2003 12:56 AM