Slashdot Mirror
Conviction of Sen. Ted Stevens Is Thrown Out
A federal judge has thrown out the conviction of the senator who educated us all about the true nature of the Internet. Ted Stevens had been convicted last fall of lying about free home renovations that he received from an oil contractor, 8 days before he lost his Senate re-election bid. The judge blasted the US Department of Justice prosecutors for mishandling the case in ways that might rise to the level of criminality. "In 25 years on the bench, I have never seen anything approach the mishandling and misconduct in this case," Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said. He called the allegations "shocking and disturbing." According to the article, "Several jurors have told The Washington Post that the evidence against Stevens was overwhelming during a month-long trial that ended in October."
What are the odds that one or more of the "prosecutors" were planted by Stevens or his allies?
I know that's totally tin-foil-hat-enducing conspiracy theory, but with how rich and connected this guy is, is it unreasonable to think that he convinced someone to have someone else make a few mistakes?
Maybe there *should* be criminal charges against the prosecution, but not necessarily in the way that the judge has implied.
But I also think that we need a new (fair) trial, and that this guy should not get off just because he's old or no longer in power. And that's what it looks like has happened. (And no, his "damaged reputation" is not punishment enough if he is indeed guilty.)
-David
Best in the world? That's a pretty big statement, how is it better than Canada's, the UK's, Ireland's, France's or for that matter most if not all of the EU?
They don't spend millions arguing about whether they should execute someone (they go for the cheaper route of locking them up for life), right there I'd say they have a leg up. Plus, for the most part they don't have to deal with two levels of jurisdiction (Fed. vs. State) which also reduces complexity and cost.
Sorry, but I'm sick of Americans saying "we have the best X in the world", that kind of thinking eventually leads to "and we should impose it on everyone else through war".
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Ted Stevens was not proven guilty in a court of law and therefore we must, legally, presume his innocence.
Cops presume you as a SUSPECT because they SUSPECT you committed a crime, if it is serious enough they may arrest you, etc, and then they must prove in court that you did commit that crime.
You may call him a corrupt bastard because you BELIEVE he is guilty, but you haven't proven it, and if you go around saying he is guilty he can sue you for libel. And why the hell should we believe your opinion he's guilty, just because you saw some videos and read some news articles? Videos and photos can be doctored or misinterpreted, and the news is often misleading, incomplete or outright wrong. People interpret things differently, have political motivations, etc.
This is the reason there is a court system... to protect suspects from the government and from the public.