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."
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.
My work here is dung.
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.
Procedural mistakes should not overturn convictions that are this overwhelming. 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.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
My father-in-law faced one of the prosecutors in a tax case once. She pulled a lot of the same crap then, harassing witnesses, changing the story she was trying to prosecute, etc.
This is almost certainly like O.J. Simpson, where a guilty man was framed.
Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
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
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.
To set aside the whole verdict - man, that takes some real stones.
It's also frustrating how little about the specifics that are even revealed in the press. There's got to be a much bigger story in all this.
Instead of dropping the charges, the DOJ should have asked for a new trial - which is exactly what Steven's attorneys were asking for.
No, the bullshit is that Don Siegleman is still a convict while Steven's walks. The prosecutorial misconduct was far, far, FAR, FAR worse in the case of the former governor than it was for the former senator. Just to start with, the prosecutor who went after Siegleman is married to the campaign manager of Siegleman's opponent.
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