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.
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)
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
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
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.
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.
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...
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
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