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."
Why is this YRO?
Now, the process that have freed this sleeze-ball are also the processes that help in preventing the innocent from being railroaded. I'd rather free an occasional sleeze than see a lot of innocents convicted unjustly.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
I don't think there should be a problem with what Stevens did. If the government were prohibited from interfering in the economy, there wouldn't be any incentive for a oil company to renovate a politician's house, of all things.
In such situations, all I have to ask is, "where does the actual use of force come into play?" Answer that, and you'll know who is responsible for the violation of rights. In this case, as in the rest, the force - through selective laws that hinder competition and benefit a select few - is supplied by politicians.
None of the things Steven's was accused of receiving illegally were false. Just the amount of value in them.
So a $250,000 felon, or a $80,000 felon..either way he still should be a felon by any reasonable definition.
I'll say that the decision to not retry him is reasonable given his age. His record is, ahem, clean, but his tattered reputation is frankly, well deserved.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Much of the hearing today focused on what transpired during an April 15, 2008, interview with the key witness, Bill Allen. During that interview, according to notes taken by two of the prosecutors, Allen said he did not recall talking to a friend of Stevens's about sending the senator a bill for work on his home, according to Sullivan.
Under oath at trial, however, Allen testified that he was told by the friend to ignore a note Stevens sent seeking a bill for the remodeling work.
"Bill, don't worry about getting a bill" for Stevens, Allen said the friend told him. "Ted is just covering his [expletive]."
Ok, so we have Ted Stevens asking for a bill on the remodeling, like he should. But it sounds like one was never received or produced. So what was Stevens convicted of?
After a month-long trial, Stevens was convicted of not reporting on Senate disclosure forms that he accepted about $250,000 in gifts and free renovations to his home in Girdwood, Alaska. Most of the gifts and free remodeling work were supplied by Bill Allen, chief executive of Veco, a now-defunct oil services company.
Ok, regardless of whether or not an invoice was ever produced, the Senate is required to report things like this on their financial disclosure forms so that under the table payments can be discovered. It still sounds like he's guilty for failing to put "I just got these bitching additions to my house from this contractor for $0." Which should spark an investigation.
My point is whether they find him guilty or not, he failed his duties as a senator. It's a shame the prosecution botched this case and withheld that evidence from the court as he's still guilty of failing to disclose this information publicly on his financial disclosure form.
If it weren't the procedural flaws in the prosecution's case it would have likely been something else getting the conviction overturned. Stevens is way too wealthy and politically connected to be punished for any crime.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
From everything published about this and "tube" Stevens conduct looks like he is guilty. This may even have been botched on purpose as these prosecutors are from Bush appointees.
After hearing and reading a bit about the actions of the prosecution, I unfortunately agree with this decision. The actions they took were so egregious that they should not be allowed to proceed.
Now... whether the charges on Stevens should've been permanently thrown out forever, I don't know - that seems a bit much. But you can't consistently withhold evidence from the defense and expect your case to be supported by an impartial judge.
Stevens is almost certainly guilty, from everything I've seen and read, but that doesn't mean he's not entitled to a fair trial.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
I disagree. His reputation is shredded. He's 80+ years old. Seems like a fair trade to me.
The 'mistakes' by the prosecutors were pretty egregious. Overturning the verdict is reasonable in this situation. As is not retrying him based on his age and being out of the Senate.
It's not technically 'justice', but in the end it seems like a fair compromise.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Procedural mistakes should not overturn convictions that are this overwhelming.
How are you going to judge what is overwhelming and what isn't? It is far more in societies interest that prosecutors and cops start going by the book, even if it means some potentially guilty parties go free.
The practice of law used to require one book, when we found this nation maybe a 100 now there are 10's of thousands of books involving the law in various aspects and it has gotten to be too much. We need to reboot the justice department by rewriting the laws so they are prudent, consistent and concise.
I agree with you there. But if you RTFA you'll see that it wasn't a simple mistake of ignorance of some obscure passage in a book. These were basic rules that the prosecutors broke.
Believe it or not, I don't believe those played a factor in the DOJ dropping the case. Apparently, Holder felt it more important to punish the prosecution on this one than nail Senator Tubes. Some of the factors claimed to play into his decision were the facts that Stevens is 85 (unlikely to be able to serve much jail time), no longer a sitting Senator, and that any movement forward on this case would be tainted.
As for whether or not he's innocent or not is irrelevant at this point. He never got a fair trial. And without a fair trial, the justice system cannot prove something one way or another. He'll probably be remembered by the public as a guilty bastard, and never manage anything else for the remainder of his life. He's permanently retired now, which is the worst part that would have come from the conviction. Not the fine or the trip to Club Fed.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Several jurors have told The Washington Post that the evidence against Stevens was overwhelming during a month-long trial that ended in October.
Doesn't matter, and surprised /. would post such a trolling and/or clueless aside. The judge ruled the prosecution mishandled evidence and witnesses. The finders of fact, the jurors, were therefore incapable of reaching a just verdict. Their opinions don't matter, because what they heard and saw has been ruled as hopelessly corrupted by prosecutorial misconduct.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Procedural mistakes should not overturn convictions that are this overwhelming.
Exactly. Due process has no place in getting in the way of a prosecutor winning a case by lying, manipulating evidence and harassing witnesses.
This is trolling: Where's the sense of proportion? This was a mutual dealing between two people. It just so happens the guy receiving the favors has a vote in congress. Maybe there's something here, but its like fixing a scratch on the wall in a mobile home.
Compare this against what's happening with taxpayer dollars; Trillions of dollars going from my and your pockets directly into shady Banks, who will lose our money just like they lost their own.
That's the way the system works. Sort of like the first Simpson trial. The LAPD definitely engaged in tactics that were unethical to say the least and he got off the hook largely because of that. Was he actually guilty? I don't think we'll ever know, but there was definitely manufactured evidence that tainted things enough to get him off.
It's a shame in a sense because he wasn't really cleared in the mind of the public and he didn't serve time either. But that's what we've got.
I suspect that's what Stevens is going to be getting as well. No prison, but uncleanably tainted reputation.
Well, that's the thing, we can speculate, but he was ultimately robbed of his chance to prove his case in court. In cases like this the reputation is indelibly smudge with no real recourse.
Admittedly though, as bad as that is, it beats the other system where prosecutors just try again and again until they get the verdict they want.
Au contraire! The exact opposite is true. Sen. Stevens is not (legally) guilty. What you meant to say is that "this doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong." Our court system still stands on the belief of innocence until proven guilt. His guilt was not proven, so he is innocent.
He might have done no wrong too; we don't know. We don't have all the facts and can't say for sure (or at least beyond reasonable doubt) that he is guilty so, according to our legal system, he is innocent
I'm not defending Sen. Stevens but I am defending our legal system. For all its flaws (there are many), it is the best legal system in the world. Maybe that's not saying much but for the most part, it works.
You know, I'm just a lowly member of the unwashed masses, not one of the oligarchical leaders who are above the "law" and all, but when a contractor does major remodeling work for me and never bills me for it--I tend to notice it. Now maybe Ted has people who handle his bills for him (again, not lowering himself to our filthy level), but I find it hard to believe that his people just forgot about a major renovation.
I also doubt that the contractor just forgot to send the bill. Most contractors I know don't do that either. Maybe it was one of those magic contractors that doesn't charge for their services.
I don't buy for a second that this was anything less than what it appears to be--a wink/wink, nudge/nudge kind of situation where a contractor (or person behind the contractor) was bribing the good senator in hopes (nay, in EXPECTATION) of a little favoritism when Alaska's earmark windfalls were divided up. I don't care how good Steven's lawyers are--this looks, quacks, and waddles just like a duck and that indicates a duck to me.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
disagree. His reputation is shredded. He's 80+ years old. Seems like a fair trade to me.
The 'mistakes' by the prosecutors were pretty egregious. Overturning the verdict is reasonable in this situation. As is not retrying him based on his age and being out of the Senate.
It's not technically 'justice', but in the end it seems like a fair compromise
He's 80 years old, was extremely powerful a year ago, glaringly corrupt, and the GOP is trying to get him reinstated. Political corruption charges are perhaps the most dangerous type of charges to throw out on technicalities. The fact that one man (the judge) can overturn the jury of his peers on the basis that the lawyers who got him convicted did it wrong is proof that it takes only 2 corrupt men in a room full of people to get away with anything (and I'm sure your imagination has not yet stretched around what the word anything encompasses when it comes to corrupt men in federal power). If the people who paid Stevens money pay the judge or the prosecution enough money to "screw a few things up" then no politician can ever be imprisoned for corruption charges as long as that dynasty stands. This is the type of thing that will affect you extremely negatively in the near future. Perhaps you should bother yourself with looking past a man's age before letting a corrupt potentate return to power.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Procedural mistakes should not overturn convictions that are this overwhelming.
Procedural mistakes should absolutely overturn convictions, overwhelming or otherwise.
As it is now, when the police are investigating a crime, or a prosecutor is building a case, they have the capability, legal or usually otherwise, to build a "overwhelming" case against someone who is completely and totally innocent of the specific crime. The reason they don't is partially ideological, but mostly because they know the case would be overturned on appeal, if the first judge even let the evidence be introduced. This is the reason we don't have prisons (gitmo aside) full of people innocent of the specific crime they were convicted for but aren't terribly well liked by the police and DA's office.
Once the court system starts saying, "Well, this guy may or may not be innocent, but he sure does deserve to be in prison," we're all screwed. Initially, only about half of us are screwed, (the people who voted for the other guy) but eventually we all will be.
Agreed.
Now this, I can't agree on. People deserve an opportunity to clear their name through a re-trial, no matter what the age or circumstances. And the public deserves to see that Justitia really is blind, and don't let who you are and what you do (or no longer do) give you advantages over the next man.
I think the only reasonable is that when a case gets overturned, a mandatory retrial takes place. As long as there is an opportunity, however small or convoluted, for people to cheat the system by having a case thrown out, that loophole will be exploited. By those with the power to exploit it.
It's called disclosure. Watch the movie "My Cousin Vinnie" for an explanation.
You don't need an excuse to watch that movie, it's great by itself!
No sig for the moment.
Either Simpson was innocent but only a person with millions to hire a dream team legal defense could overcome police corruption and a county willing to bankrupt itself to get a conviction anyway or he was actually guilty but showed that if you have the money for a dream team defense, you can beat any indictment, including murder.
Either way, as a result of the trial, we know the FBI's crime lab thinks there's a place for voting in science and god knows what other unacceptable practices. Neither possible scenario paints the justice system or police/FBI in a good light.
Right. I'm puzzled at why so many here are knee-jerkedly boo-ing the court's decision. Slashdotters are supposed to be freedom-loving folks who demand that law enforcement and prosecution play by the rules. I bet they'd be cheering the decision if it were Stallman or TBP's asses on the line. Overzealous law enforcement and prosecution is a BIG problem these days, especially since Bush took charge.
It's time we slap their wrists and say "No! Bad lawyer! Bad Cop!" and make 'em sit in the corner for awhile. They don't play by the rules, they face punishment through the very laws they claim to be upholding. Sanction their asses.
I'd rather see a few O.J.s or Ted Stevens go free than thousands of innocents jailed through miscarriages of justice!
It turns out, when you staff the Justice Department based on political ideology rather than capability as lawyers, you get crappy lawyers who have the right political ideology.
See, for example, Monica Goodling.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
Our court system still stands on the belief of innocence until proven guilt.
Yes.
His guilt was not proven, so he is innocent.
Now you lost me. So if I kill someone in cold blood. Take pictures of me doing it. Have video. Have 100,000 witnesses. And I get my trial thrown out on a technicality, does that mean I'm "innocent"? Hell no. I'd still be a murderer. Just not a convicted murdered. "Innocent" isn't even a legal term. that you use it like it is a finding of a court shows you have no idea what you are talking about. At best, a court can find you not guilty. And even that is just saying that they were unable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what they find, not "innocent." Someone is either guilty or innocent based of fact. Either they did what they are accused of or they didn't. No court can ever change that. The court can only decide, based on information available, whether that can be proven. If they find the opposite of what really happened, that doesn't change reality. You can be innocent and be found guilty. It happens all the time. You can be guilty and be found not guilty. That happens all the time too. And the presumption of innocence has nothing to do with that.
The presumption of innocence is a guideline for treatment during trial. Not before. Not after. Not outside the courtroom. Not in public opinion polls. Just for how the court should act after trial has already started until it is complete. Anyone that gives it any more weight than that has no idea what they are talking about.
And if you are wondering why, think of it this way, if the cop presumed everyone innocent, then they'd never be allowed to arrest anyone, after all, you don't arrest people you believe to be innocent, that's unethical and illegal. And when setting bail, do the judges say "well, we think you are innocent, so we'll let you go on your own recognisance"? Hell no. They set bail on the presumption of guilt. It's just the treatment during trial and only during trial that's effected. They let you dress in a suit to look good, rather than dragging you in front of the jury in a jail suit, which would prejudice them against you. They force the burden of proof on the prosecution. They give you in-trial concessions only to help you mount an effective defense. It was never meant to be something that warped reality to force innocence upon those who are not. It was never meant to be something that alters my freedom of thought and speach (OJ is a murderer, even if he was found not guilty, and Stevens is a corrupt bastard, even if his conviction doesn't stick). It is a court guideline to be used in trial only for how to treat them during the trial, and nothing more.
Learn to love Alaska
Very false dichotomy, as there is a third possibility. He was the murder, and the victim of a corrupt investigation. However, he had the wealth and status to hire a dream team defense and beat a murder indictment that he, paradoxically, both deserved (because committed murder) and did not deserve (because the government cannot be allowed to break the law to enforce the law).
Unfortunately, the way this paradox was resolved is was probably the best we could hope for, jury nullification on the criminal charges and civil penalties leveled against him. The other possibilities are worse in at least one, perhaps multiple, senses of the word "justice". An accquited OJ with, no civil penalties, would have been complete injustice for the murder victims families, and to a lesser extent society at large. OJ in jail would have been a just punishment for the crime murder, but convicting anyone, even actual criminals, as a result of a grossly incompotent and corrupt investigation would make society less just by reducing the State's burden of proof. That's reality for you...
Republicans, like Democrats (and virtually every other political movement), are not a hive-mind. There are all sorts of voices in the party, from individuals to political factions. It is entirely possible that he was attacked by other Republicans for political or personal reasons, because some factions needed a scapegoat, or alternatively that this was literally just a normal trial with no political railroading.
I don't believe Double Jeopardy applies in these situations (but IANAL).
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I see... so the prosecution should feel free to withhold evidence arbitrarily, in hopes that the defense won't notice...? And if they do, they just get to start their case over from scratch at the taxpayers expense?
Hate to say it--but if you architect a system prone to abuse--people will abuse it. If you want people to cooperate honestly--they need good incentives to do so. Punishment works just as well--the prosecution should know that if they cheat--they lose *everything*--that way the cost of misconduct is so high as to make it nearly inconceivable.
I'll admit...I don't find it entirely implausible that the guy may have bribed the prosecution to carry out the case unprofessionally, and used that and double jeopardy as a get out of jail free card (a problem which should be fixed). But discounting that possibility--the system's worked as intended here for once. Innocent or Guilty--someone engaged in an abuse of power to get the guilty verdict--and that crime is so dangerous that they must be let free to set an example to all prosecutors never to engage in such misconduct.
The abuse of power by the state in a prosecution is more dangerous than the abuse one individual (even representing the state) in any other manner. Quite simply--the verdict was not valid by any conceivable interpretation once it was demonstrated that the prosecution was willing and able to behave unethically, and even if it was valid...an example needs to be made whenever this occurs.
And at the same time flagrant tax cheats and criminals are nominated to cabinet positions with scantly a snicker from the media. We are at war in this country, and neither side displays even the slightest shred of integrity or ethics.
Quo vadis, USA?
End anonymous moderation and posting on
Which I doubt he'll care too much about, considering that he's 85. I don't know about you, but if I were 85 where the current life expectancy is in the high 70's, and I had a lifetime pension from the Senate (which he'll likely get to keep now that the conviction has been thrown out), I wouldn't care what anyone thought about my reputation. More than likely, I wouldn't live long enough for it to matter much.
Just to play Devil's Advocate - I'll suggest another possibility. People of power like to think in terms of immortality. You buy a mausoleum. You establish institutions. And if you're a public servant, you consider your "legacy." You want history to record you as a person who stood out in your time in office; even an individual who did great things. Stevens has already had a taste of history (often he's noted as being the longest sitting Republican in the Senate). Surely he would have preferred it if people remembered him that way, not for corruption.
I'm torn.
At a minimum, one wishes you could pigeonhole Senator Stevens and ask if, having had justice department people play fast and loose with the rules of evidence, he has rethought his opinions on allowing evidence to be withheld in military tribunals holding people at Guatanamo. People who have a lot less pull and power than, say, the senior in the U.S. Senate.
If he say "Gee no, that is just fine", put on the record he has stated he has no problem with evidence being withheld from the defense and throw his ass back in jail.
Actually, no, don't ask, he *has* said exactly that. Throw his ass back in jail.
New Rule: The Rules of Evidence for Republicans must allow any evidence that they advocated allowing for other people.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
There is also the small matter of the prosecution sending one of their witnesses home to Washington State because he was ill.
This witness was also on the defense list. The prosecutors sent him home without notifying the defense, which is such an obvious abuse that the judge nearly stopped the trial right then and there.
But no matter. The prosecution got what they wanted - Stevens is no longer a Senator. That can't be rectified.
Remember, the rules apply to all of us. When they come to accuse you of something, will you be so trusting of the prosecutors?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Yeah, um, you might not have noticed, but the President at the time, was a Republican as was his Attorney General. How did the Democrats manage this feat of bi-partisanship? This seems much more likely to have been a case of incompetence and overzealous prosecution than deliberate political sabotage. Why would the Bush DOJ want Stevens to lose for political reason?
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
one manifestation of corruption is bogus corruption charges.
Why doesn't this get modded up when the partisan "it's the fault of the Democrats" or "it's the fault of the Republicans" goes to "+5 myopic"? I can say with 100% certainty that 99.999% of our political problems are due to the Republicans and/or Democrats. So why don't we jettison them all?
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I hate to break it to you, but there's absolutely NOTHING partisian about this in the slightest... unless Republicans are going after their own these days. The department of justice is a "neutral" body in a conservative state, and is directly under the reigns of a very conservative governor (more conservative than Uncle Ted). There's not a single card-carrying democrat involved here. Hell, there are very few card-carrying democrats in the state of Alaska! The AK Justice Department has a history of being very right-leaning. THEY'RE the ones who indicted him, and THEY'RE the ones who screwed up the case.
I'd be more inclined to believe that they purposefully botched the thing in order to make sure Ted didn't go to jail.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
There is plenty in 9/11 to blame Clinton for... Most in fact...
Actually, I think you can blame most of 9/11 on Osama Bin Laden and the hijackers.
Honestly, your post is flamebait. This kind of prepared terrorist attack is nearly impossible to prevent, particularly in a reasonably free nation. I blame neither Clinton nor Bush for 9/11. Also, with regard to this:
Clinton was a lawyer and rejected the offer [wikipedia.org], because there was no grand jury indictment against Osama (yet)
The source for your link is an LA Times opinion piece. Please don't do that here.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
No. You completely miss the point of the parent, which is not about the importance of presumed innocence, but that fact != assumption.
"OJ may very well be a murderer, but he is innocent."
You don't know that. As the parent says 'innocent' or 'guilty' are based on facts, not on conviction. If he is the murderer then by definition he is not innocent.
We presume that a person is innocent until proven guilty, we don't know that a person is innocent. Otherwise there would be no point in a trial.
When a person is found 'not guilty', we are saying that we can not find sufficient evidence that our presumption is wrong. Therefore the legal system will continue to assume that the person is innocent.
But assumption/presumption != fact, and so it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with the findings of the court and people are entitled to their opinion on the matter.
In the case of OJ, he lost his civil case because on the balance of probability, the evidence presented suggests he is guilty.
Because our requirements are higher than 'balance of probability' in a criminal case, the legal assumption is still that he is innocent. This is as it should be, otherwise we would convict many, many innocent people.
However, my personal opinion does not require any more than 'balance of probability' and I thus believe OJ is guilty. I may be correct or I may be wrong, we will never know for sure, and that is why OJ was still walking the streets after the case.
You are unlikely to have enough information to say that he is innocent.