"... lay down your money and you play your part" (Springsteen).Eric Holder is this week's hero of Orin Hatch and the House republicans.
He did what all prosecutors do and gave a new trial to a criminal convicted by a duly constituted jury.
There was no special treatment rarely afforded to the rich, powerful, and famous.
Yes, in the final analysis that convicted criminal was treated exactly like middle class and poor convicted criminals are.
NOT !!!
What Holder actually did was give Senator Ted "Bridge To Nowhere" Stevens very special, very rare, and very quid pro quo treatment.
Eric will be rewarded.
Here is a quote from a Yale Law Journal article that describes what really happens to the middle class and poor who prosecutors mistreat with what are called "Brady violations" of their rights:
... when suppressed evidence does come to light, reviewing courts usually deem suppressions "harmless" and uphold the convictions ... Thus, not only are defendants' rights rarely vindicated, but also the government rarely suffers a serious penalty for its misconduct.(Yale Law Journal, emphasis added). The rarity generally happens to the privileged few who can hire big gun lawyers, and who are not from the middle class or the poor.
Thus, Holder has worked this baby so that he gets the best of both propaganda worlds.
Holder is seen as a good guy by the republicans, and to the remainder of the populace who do not know the reality involved here, this will be seen as part of the new "bipartisan" world of American politics.
We have lamented the fact that what we rejected in the election is creeping into the Obama administration.
This "all's well that ends well" doublespeak does not bode well for future prosecutions of Bush II crimes, unless it is a quid pro quo of a different sort. I mean, was the Seigelman-Minor case a wonderful prosecution or just full of wonder?
If you get my drift.
We will know by the end of this year for sure.
Alaska is outraged. They want a special election right away. They want Stevens back in the US Senate. Stevens lost by only about 4,000 votes even with the 7 felony convictions. Perhaps Holder will reap what he has sown.
The next post in this series is here.
do you have any idea what the evidence was that was withheld? No? Didn't think so
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (Eric), ;)
ReplyDeleteFor the withholding of evidence to be error it would have to be "Brady" evidence. Which is exculpatory evidence.
The prosecution can withhold any evidence that is not exculpatory without that withholding being an error.
Stevens was on tape, like Blago, saying he knew he could go to jail for what he was doing. Stevens is a lawyer.
The jury heard that evidence and plenty more.
There is no indication that those tapes were fabricated.
As to prosecution witnesses fabricating part of their testimony, a witness telling a falsehood is an everyday event.
Once again, the exercise in such premises is to determine whether a reasonable jury could still convict absent that falsehood.
So, the exercise here is like in all other Brady violation cases and all other fabrication cases. You don't reward the convicted because someone lied or otherwise misbehaved. You punish the guilty.
Was the exculpatory evidence that was withheld and the fabrication sufficient to change the minds of reasonable jurors?
That is a question for an appellate court in cases where a defendant is a middle class or poor American.
If so lets hear it. If not keep it hidden as you have so far. Then let a court make an informed decision. An appellate court.
That is what happens to the middle class and poor folk who have to rely on public defenders instead of quid pro quo isn't it Eric?
People who have been exposed to power know they should be the only ones to ask that their charges be completely dropped by Holder instead of having an appellate court look at it.
ReplyDeleteGovernor Siegelman who alleges gross federal prosecutor misconduct of the Brady sort has now made contact with Holder.
Why have no public defenders done the same on the behalf of their middle class or poor clients?
Federal courts have threatened US Attorneys in other cases, but nothing happens.
ReplyDelete