In Stevens case, federal prosecutors lied and deceived
In 2008, then-Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska was prosecuted and convicted on charges that he had failed to report free work that a politically connected contractor had performed on his home.
Eight days after his conviction in federal court, Stevens was defeated for re-election.
The late Sen. Ted Stevens, who died in a plane crash in 2010
In early 2009, however, that conviction was overturned at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice, which had discovered serious prosecutorial misconduct by attorneys in its Public Integrity Section.
A new independent investigation of that misconduct has now been released, and it is chilling. It concludes:
“The investigation and prosecution of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated Senator Stevens’s defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government’s key witness.”
The details of the report make it even more chilling. Prosecutors were so determined to convict Stevens and get the scalp of a U.S. senator whom they believed corrupt that they point-blank lied to the court, to the defense and even to other members of the Department of Justice. (The report calls the lies “astonishing misstatements.”)
Prosecutors withheld crucial evidence. They allowed their witnesses to offer testimony that they knew to be false. There is also strong evidence that they pushed witnesses to fabricate last-minute testimony needed to close gaping holes in their case.
One of the few silver linings in the case is the fact that Stevens and the Bush administration that prosecuted him belonged to the same party. Had Stevens been a Democrat, this would been portrayed as a politically motivated hit job by the executive branch against a member of the opposite party, which would have created a crisis of an entirely different kind.
That also would have distracted attention from the real issues in the case, which are equally troubling in their own right:
– We need an aggressive, effective Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Justice Department; it is essential in ferreting out government corruption, especially at the state and local level where local prosecutors may be too intimidated or too compromised to take action themselves. However, actions such as these call into question the integrity of the Public Integrity Section. (It is important to stress that once other lawyers in the Justice Department began reviewing the case on appeal, they quickly discovered and reported the misbehavior of their colleagues; the Justice Department itself moved to have the conviction overturned.)
– If the defendant in the case was not a U.S. senator, the longest-serving Republican senator in history, it is questionable whether the facts of the case would ever have come to light. How many lower-profile cases in both federal and state courts are dogged by similar prosecutorial misconduct and are never discovered? When the awesome power of the government is turned against a single citizen, it is critically important that such power be wielded fairly and honestly. It is deeply troubling when such awesome power is abused.
– Despite evidence that “would prove beyond a reasonable doubt (that exculpatory) information was intentionally withheld from the attorneys for Senator Stevens,” the new Stevens report concludes that no criminal proceeding against the rogue prosecutors is possible because the legal barriers against such steps are so high.
Those barriers exist for a reason — prosecutors cannot do their job aggressively without a high degree of legal protection. But if those barriers are so high that they preclude punishment for conscious deception, fabrication and withholding of evidence, they need to be reconsidered.
As it is, prosecutors rarely suffer consequences for abusing the process. (Mike Nifong, the prosecutor in the infamous Duke lacrosse case, was eventually disbarred for his actions in that case, but such steps are rare.)
Consider a case out of Louisiana, in which prosecutors withheld blood evidence and other proof that would have helped to exonerate a murder suspect. Instead, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to death, eventually serving 18 years on Death Row and coming close to execution several times before being granted a new trial.
The truth came to light only after a junior district attorney on the case made a death-bed confession, and even then his confession was withheld for five years. In a new trial, the jury cleared the defendant after 35 minutes of deliberation.
Later, the defendant sued and was awarded $14 million in damages. But last year the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Clarence Thomas, threw that award out on grounds that it violated prosecutorial immunity.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
262 comments Add your comment
Joe Hussein Mama
March 16th, 2012
10:29 am
(ir)Rational — “But I still make the argument that disbarring lawyers is punishing them. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a fair, or adequate punishment for ruining someone’s life, but I’m not sure what would be. I’m simply (still) stating that I would rather the courts follow current law, and leave legislation up to the legislature.”
Again, isn’t it the Bar Association that does the disbarring? Not the courts?
That said, it’s my understanding that a felony conviction generally gets you an automatic disbarment and that a pattern of misdemeanors can get you disbarred, too.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:30 am
ty
If that’s your standard for deflection, you have very low standards. Seeing that the poster was directing his comment at Thomas, who wrote the opinion in that case, I don’t see how you or anybody else can call that deflection.
————————–
(ir)Rational: Isn’t disbarring a lawyer basically doing that? Or have I missed something somewhere?
It’s punishment, I just don’t agree with your first statement @ 9:48 saying that it’s drastic. I think that it fits the issue in this particular case.
————————-
HDB
He’s conservative, what else do they need to love?
Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
March 16th, 2012
10:30 am
Another weekend looms! Let’s see what trickery we can come up with for the GOP for next week.
How shall we bait them this week? Social issues again? So much fun!
Gator Joe
March 16th, 2012
10:30 am
Jay:
When prosecutorial authority is abused and results in wrongful convictions, no matter the status of the victims, rich or poor, famous or not, everything possible should be done to correct the situation and make restitution. Prosecutors who abuse their authority in that regard should be held responsible and suffer severe consequences. The case of Senator Stevens, whom I didn’t support or like, is shameful and tragic. Sadly, as was alluded to in Jays article, only the rich and famous have the highest probability of receiving competent defense counsel and a fair trial.
PS
The people at the top of the list who deserved aggressive investigation and prosecution were Bush and Cheney for war crimes.
SoGaDawg
March 16th, 2012
10:30 am
Jay is correct. A public integrity unit is needed. However, he was quick to try to throw the Bush Administration under the bus for this. Nevertheless, he continues to not critique anything that the Obama Department of Justice does. More hypocracy from Jay.
If I recall correct, Jay wanted a public inquiry into the CIA torture memos with prosecution of John Yoo and everyone involved as a viable option. However…he and his liberal buddies have been strangely quiet about the Obama administration’s use of drones to execute suspected terrorists and the alleged legality of that. Furthermore, he’s said NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, about the Obama administration’s use of a drone to kill an American citizen, al-Awlaki.
So let me get this right. We need to prosecute someone who advocated the use of waterboarding suspected terrorists, but we don’t need to prosecute Eric Holder and everyone else in the Obama administration who advocates and condones killing suspected terrorists – including American citizens? And what’s the difference between these two positions? Only that one involved Republicans (who are evil and vile), and the worse of the two positions – you know killing people – involves Democrats and Obama (who are awesome).
Hypocracy? Of course not…
Jay
March 16th, 2012
10:30 am
“(And seriously, how can you affirm that the “wise Latina” is smarter than a dust mop?)
Have you ever read a Sotomayor opinion, Rags? Or is that just a groundless dismissive attack?
In my own mind, someone who was raised in the Bronx by a Puerto Rican single mother (her dad died early) but who nonetheless managed to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton and then serve as editor of the Yale Law Journal — I’d say she has pretty well established that she is “smarter than a dust mop.”
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
10:31 am
(i)Rational, how can I dislike someone that I have never met? You psyche is weak and the law is the law. Innocent until proven guilty. Go read the article and get back with me! I am not an official or even an IRS employee. Let them do their job!
SoGaDawg
March 16th, 2012
10:32 am
@ Gator Joe .
So Bush and Cheyney committed war crimes, but Obama and his buddies didn’t? See my last post. You and the rest of the Democrat sheeple can’t see the forrest because of the trees.
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
10:33 am
You psyche is weak
should be YOUR psyche is weak!!
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:33 am
Bro – You’re right, drastic might have been the wrong word to use there.
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:33 am
Dear Brosephus @ 10:30, “He’s conservative, what else do they need to love?” As I suggested to friend HCB, please direct me to a poorly argued opinion. Thomas writes better than all of them, except maybe Roberts, and he is not as funny as Scalia, but I find myself on Thomas’s side whenever he is in dissent. I read a lot of those opinions. If you want a great example of terrible legal writing, try to wade through anything written by former Justice J P Stevens.
Don't Forget
March 16th, 2012
10:34 am
But I’ll ask you once again, would you rather he didn’t follow the law, and instead attempted to legislate from the bench?
Isn’t the main purpose for the Supreme Court to determine whether something is constitutional or not?
Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?
March 16th, 2012
10:34 am
Post a less than flattering photo on Facebook, and you’re fired. Make a heated comment that can be interpreted as something negative, and you’re fired
bro, I agree. But it is not law enforcement only. Teachers, other professionals. Even marketing/PR people face these issues. I agree they don’t necessarily face a shooting situation daily.
I also agree that law enforcement is not paid enough. And yes, some cases get lost in proportion for the public, as they do for prosecutors (especially those who are elected). It is a fine line to try to walk.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:36 am
ragnar
So, if Thomas wrote great opinions and was more liberal in his beliefs, would conservatives still love him? HELL NO!! So, basically, conservatives love him because they share the same beliefs. Read for comprehension for once. Not everything written about conservatives here is an attack. Geez….
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:36 am
Dear Jay @ 10:30, good morning. It was merely a groundless dismissive attack, attempt to leaven with humor. I read a couple of her appellate arguments, and they were pretty scrambled, but in all fairness that profession is like any other – practice makes perfect, and she has not had enough practice for a fair assessment.
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:37 am
Dear Brosephus @ 10:36, you don’t have to take offense, you only have to show me a bad opinion. I affirm there is none. I have not read them all, but I have read enough to hold in low regard all who “sniff” at Thomas’s work.
Jay
March 16th, 2012
10:37 am
Furthermore, he’s said NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, about the Obama administration’s use of a drone to kill an American citizen, al-Awlaki.
Actually, SoGaDawg, that is incorrect. I’ve written repeatedly that I support such actions. If you oppose them, give us your argument.
My own argument is that if a U.S. citizen takes up arms or a leadership role in a violent movement to attack the United States, said citizen makes himself a valid target for elimination.
If we can capture said citizen, we should try him for treason through our judicial process. But if we cannot, we should try to kill him. That remains true regardless of which political party controls the White House.
There was always been a distinction between how you treat enemies on the field of battle, where he can do you and yours violent harm, and how you treat them after they have been captured and disarmed, and pose no further threat to you.
ty webb
March 16th, 2012
10:38 am
Brosephus,
okay, you’ve convinced me. Obama is the first and only person ever unfairly “blamed” anonymously in comment sections of democrat blogs.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:38 am
Blind Justice – I read the article. It is talking about Supreme Court Financial Disclosure Forms. Not tax returns. So, your argument makes no sense, and frankly you’re not making much sense either.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:40 am
Keep Up
Teachers, other professionals. Even marketing/PR people face these issues.
I’m not saying they don’t. However, how often do any of those people get called to testify in court? The slightest blemish on my record corrupts my testimony and reliability as a witness. The industry term is called Giglio impaired based on a court ruling from 1972.
http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=429f39bd-b36e-4a95-864f-d1559d01af6a
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:41 am
Dear Brosephus @ 10:36, perhaps your argument is not as bad as I initially thought. The definition of conservative is “grounded in eternal principles” and the definition of leftism is “ad hoc adjudication, power to the overlords making the decisions.” So if Thomas were less conservative, I would hold him in lower regard. (Among the leftists only R B Ginsburg seems to try to adhere to logical argument, and she borrows liberally from foreign jurisprudence. I have some hope for Lady Kaga, however – still early.)
Gator Joe
March 16th, 2012
10:42 am
Anyone who is supportive of waterboarding should submit themselves to the procedure. Many, perhaps most, of those who agree with torture (waterboarding and other forms) have never served in the military, and don’t have children serving who would be in a position to be captured by the enemy and tortured.
By the way, name calling doesn’t strengthen an argument.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:42 am
Don’t Forget – That, and interpreting the laws that exist. I can’t get him to answer the question at all, but maybe you will. Do you think it was a bad decision for Justice Thomas and 4 other Justices to side with established law, or do you think they should have thrown the law out and made a new one?
Just saying..
March 16th, 2012
10:43 am
Thanks for spotlighting this story, Jay. Profoundly troubling, on so many levels.
Fetus on a stick
March 16th, 2012
10:44 am
Last!
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:45 am
ragnar
When you read, do you see words or pretty pictures? I’ll ask you again. If Thomas wrote the same quality of opinions but as a Liberal, would you or any other conservative still love him the same? Yes or no?
————————–
ty
Thanks for the deflection for trying to claim a deflection. I don’t see how saying Thomas was responsible for a bad decision which many here seem to agree on that very thing is a deflection. However, I do understand that many conservative leaning people here are very sensitive when it comes to criticizing conservatives. The prevailing opinion is Conservative good… Liberal Bad….
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
10:46 am
(ir)Rational does this makes sense?
In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned in disgrace after the nation learned that he had accepted tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from corporate executives and other wealthy benefactors. Forty years later, Justice Clarence Thomas is caught in a strikingly similar scandal. Similarly to Fortas, Thomas has a wealthy benefactor named Harlan Crow who has shown lavish generosity to Thomas and his Tea Partying wife Ginni. And where Fortas had an ad hoc group of corporate executives to subsidize his lifestyle, Thomas seems to have the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) — a corporate-aligned think tank that once gave him a $15,000 gift. We find it difficult to find daylight between Thomas’ actions and the gifting scandal that forced Abe Fortas off the bench.
LAVISH GIFTS: Like Fortas before him, Thomas received tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from wealthy benefactors — some of whom have an interest in cases before his court. Crow gave Thomas a $19,000 Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass. He provided Thomas’ wife with half a million dollars to start a Tea Party group, and he donated over $1 million dollars to fund a museum that will include exhibits honoring Justice Thomas. Crow has a long history of investing in conservative political causes — he’s donated nearly $5 million to Republican candidates and conservative organizations, including $100,000 to the anti-John Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — but he isn’t even the most troubling entity to rain gifts upon Clarence Thomas. That honor goes to AEI, which gifted Thomas with a $15,000 bust of Abraham Lincoln even though AEI frequently files briefs in Thomas’ Court. Thomas has not recused himself from cases in which AEI participated.
SCANDALS UPON SCANDALS: If Thomas’ addiction to high dollar favors were his only problem, that would be deeply disturbing. But this is just one of many scandals facing the justice. Justice Thomas attended a Koch-sponsored political fundraiser intended to fund the conservative infrastructure of front groups, political campaigns, think tanks, and media outlets, an act that would likely violate his ethical obligation not to engage in fundraising if the Supreme Court were not exempt from the Code of Conduct for U.S. judges. Thomas claimed that his wife Ginni — a lobbyist and high-earning member of the professional right — earned no non-investment income whatsoever while she was working at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, despite having a legal obligation to disclose her income on his annual disclosure form. After Thomas’ failure to disclose this income was widely reported by the press, Thomas amended his disclosure forms to include Ginni’s income. And the fact that his wife is now working as a Tea Party lobbyist could raise recusal issues for Justice Thomas. Ginni Thomas has a right to do whatever she wants for a living, but if the Thomas family earned one dime to lobby in favor of repealing health reform, it would be a serious conflict of interest for Thomas to sit on a case that could make that repeal a reality.
THEIR MAN ON THE COURT: The rich and the powerful have been good to Justice Thomas, but Thomas has been extremely good to them. Thomas didn’t just join the infamous Citizens United decision opening up the flood gates to corporate money in elections, he also would have struck down essential transparency laws that allow Americans to know who is buying their democracy. Thomas stood behind decisions eviscerating consumer rights and the rights of workers in the workplace, and he embraces a vision of the Constitution that is nothing shy of terrifying. In three separate opinions, conservative Thomas called for a return to a discredited theory of the Constitution that early 20th century justices used to declare federal child labor laws unconstitutional. So Thomas has little regard for the Constitution and even less for precedent — perhaps that explains why he has thumbed his nose at the Fortas precedent and entangled himself so tightly with his wealthy and influential benefactors.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:48 am
perhaps your argument is not as bad as I initially thought.
You were actually thinking when you responded to me??? I saw nothing but the usual knee jerk response that one gets when anything conservative is questioned here. Maybe if you slowed that knee down a bit, you’d find out most things are not as bad as you initially think.
Moderate Line
March 16th, 2012
10:48 am
Later, the defendant sued and was awarded $14 million in damages. But last year the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Clarence Thomas, threw that award out on grounds that it violated prosecutorial immunity.
Jay is not disclosing the whole truth. The $14 million in damages that were dismissed were for the DA failing to trained his office on Brady v. Maryland not for wrongfully withholding evidence.
My first thought concerning such a lawsuit is why would you need to train an attorney that he or she can not withhold evidence? I know that is wrong and I am not attorney. Also, the DA argued that he actually did trained their attorney’s and the action to disclose was a deliberate action by the attorney.
What Jay wrote implied that attorneys were protected from misconduct when in reality that was not the case at all. Even though I believe attorneys should not be immune from misconduct there is a difference between suing for misconduct and failure to train people properly. Maybe the reason they sued for failure to train was because of the persecution is immune and his attorney’s knew they couldn’t win so they sue for a different reason.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/09-571
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/04/cruel_but_not_unusual.html
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:49 am
Dear Jay @ 10:37, don’t want to drag you too far afield here – this is a pretty good thread – but the “targeted assassinations” maybe deserve their own essay. I have ambivalent thoughts, and most of those revolve around the changing nature of warfare.
My (Nay officer) son and I had a discussion yesterday of the differences between peacetime and wartime military, and the basis for the Constitution between the two specific Constitutional powers of Congress
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;”
Why “raise” armies, vs “maintain” navies? Shows the genius of our founding fathers, IMHO
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:51 am
Dear Brosephus @ 10:45, when I read your posts I have to search for thoughts – they usually seem to be mere strings of words with no binding idea.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
10:53 am
Blind Justice – Great, you’ve shown me a bunch of conjecture, and accusations. So, what exactly does this have to do with the ruling in question? Also, what exactly does it have to do with him interpreting the law as it is currently written? Or are you going to ignore that question for a 4th (or is it 5th, I’ve lost count) time?
ElephantWhip
March 16th, 2012
10:53 am
Raggamuffin:
You left out part of the definition of conservative: “[supposedly] grounded in eternal principles [except when it helps their comrades].”
See: Bush v. Gore, which deprived Florida of its constitutional right as a state to determine how to send its electoral votes and forced it to stop counting.
ty webb
March 16th, 2012
10:54 am
brosephus,
no, conservative good, liberal misguided…oh and admittedly, my “deflections” are no more or no less warranted than the ridiculous tongue-in-cheek “it’s Obama fault” comments by his apologists.
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
10:57 am
(i)Rational, we could go on all day about this but you can take the 1st through 5th time count, question/whatever and post the great qualities that you see in Justice Thomas. My opinion is mine and your opinion is yours! Peace!!
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
10:58 am
Dear Elephant Whip @ 10:53, please recall that the substantial ruling in Bush v Gore was 7-2.
Just saying..
March 16th, 2012
10:59 am
SoGaDawg
“However, he was quick to try to throw the Bush Administration under the bus for this. Nevertheless, he continues to not critique anything that the Obama Department of Justice does. More hypocracy from Jay.”
Sigh. Alright, let’s balance things up. Feed this story to Fox News, see where it goes. I realize they’re currently investigating the extraordinary deep mystery of why the Obama campaign would run SarahonFox political videos…but give it your best shot. We’re all tuned in.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
10:59 am
when I read your posts I have to search for thoughts – they usually seem to be mere strings of words with no binding idea.
I hope your employment doesn’t hinge on your reading and/or searching abilities. I’d hate to see you homeless and/or suckling on the government teat.
————————–
ty
I guess we have different ideals on what constitutes a deflection. No problem as I see it because I know different people have different opinions. I just don’t see the deflection that you see. We’ll just agree to disagree.
ragnar danneskjold
March 16th, 2012
11:00 am
Dear Brosephus @ 10:59, QED
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
11:01 am
Blind Justice – I never said anything about seeing great qualities in him. I’m simply asking you why his ruling on this case was incorrect. But hey, you probably can’t answer that question with anything other than “it isn’t fair” or “I feel…” or some other drivel like that so, maybe it is better if you don’t answer the question. I’m not even speaking about my opinions on this one, I’m simply asking you a question. Or rather, was trying to ask you a question.
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
March 16th, 2012
11:02 am
Steve – USA (My 2 cents available for $1 via Paypal)
March 16th, 2012
9:48 am
Yeah so we don’t need you adding to it!
________________________________________________________________________
Steve, didn’t you know?
Thoughtful and reasoned discussion is not the goal.
Derisive and sniping drive by’s are the standard. Also, throw in a little generalization and assumption.
Hyper-partisianship. They put that shyte on everything.
ElephantWhip
March 16th, 2012
11:07 am
Raggamuffin:
7 to 9 agreed there was a problem. The conservative majority agreed that they need to take the matter into their own hands and stop the state.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
March 16th, 2012
11:07 am
Hyper-partisianship. They put that shyte on everything.
ty webb
March 16th, 2012
11:08 am
brosephus,
fair enough.
Just saying..
March 16th, 2012
11:08 am
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT!
You know, I post way too many words around here, futilely trying to make the point you just made in seven.
ElephantWhip
March 16th, 2012
11:09 am
Pardon me. 7 to 2 agreed there was a problem…or maybe 7 of 9.
carlosgvv
March 16th, 2012
11:10 am
Brosephus – 10:59
You can dish it out with the best of them. But, when you have to take it, you sound like an irritated prima donna.
paulo 977
March 16th, 2012
11:10 am
Blind Justice:What more could you expect from Georgia’s own Clarence Thomas?
________________________________________________________
He is absolutely shameless , isn’t he? Can he really sleep at night?
Moderate Line
March 16th, 2012
11:12 am
Clarence Thomas wrote the decision in this case but the concept of immunity for prosecutor has a long history whether you agree with it or not. I personally find that if it can be proven that a persecutor deliberately withheld evidence or fabricated evidence then they should be personally libel. These people are in a position of power over individuals which is very one sided. Here is a blog site with a discussion on the subject.
What is interesting is how conservative are so adamant about literal interpretation of the constitution but yet this attorney immunity privilege has no basis in the constitution and counters the literal interpretation of the law which gave citizens the right to sue the government. This goes back to 1951 when Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367.
http://www.section1983blog.com/2009/09/brief-summary-of-prosecutorial-immunity.html
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 16th, 2012
11:15 am
carlosgvv
March 16th, 2012
11:10 am
Sorry Carlos, but you are dead wrong. Bro’ is one of the most civil and generally understanding bloggers here. A prima donna he is not. A well read debater he is. You should really try to read, and not just look at, his words with a preconceived notion.
Really…you could learn something.
Blind Justice
March 16th, 2012
11:16 am
paulo 977
March 16th, 2012
11:10 am
What would the world be like if everyone’s opinion was “the same”? Just imagine that!!!
stands for decibels
March 16th, 2012
11:18 am
A prima donna he is not. A well read debater he is.
like Yoda he reasons.
Don't Forget
March 16th, 2012
11:18 am
irRational – I’m no constitutional expert but I see no reason that the right to a fair trial should be compromised to achieve prosecutorial immunity. If evidence is withheld by the prosecutor it should mean a mistrial or new trial with all the evidence available. All evidence should be available to both parties and relevance/admissability should be determined by the judge prior to presentation IMO.
Steve - USA (My 2 cents available for $1 via Paypal)
March 16th, 2012
11:19 am
Jay wrote an excellent article which told the entire history of the story. The beginning, middle and end, the end being the decision by SCOTUS. Somehow people totally missed the point of the article which was overzealous prosecution and choose to instead blame Clarence Thomas.
To pretend that wasn’t deflection is a fairy tale that you tell your kids.
Some of you people are exactly like the people you claim to hate and say are idiots.
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
11:21 am
Normal
People are gonna believe whatever they want to regardless to what they see.
Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
March 16th, 2012
11:21 am
if a U.S. citizen takes up arms or a leadership role in a violent movement to attack the United States, said citizen makes himself a valid target for elimination
Umm, that’s most of Idaho, isn’t it Jay? I agree – we should start flying drones over any suspected American hate group compounds.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
11:23 am
Don’t Forget – That is the law as I understand it. That isn’t the issue at stake here. The issue was whether or not someone should be able to sue the prosecutor for prosecuting them and receive $14 million in damages. Current law says no. That’s all I was talking about.
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 16th, 2012
11:23 am
Brosephus™ – Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
11:21 am
I would amend that to “only narrow minded…”
Steve - USA (My 2 cents available for $1 via Paypal)
March 16th, 2012
11:26 am
“I would amend that to “only narrow minded extremists from the Left and Right…”
I agree.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
11:27 am
Steve – Interestingly enough, the decision by the SCOTUS was in no way related to the Stevens case. Except that it was similar, but still from a separate case that took place in Louisiana. Odd how when people can’t find anything to argue about on topic, they’ll pick an (almost related) side topic and go for that.
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
11:28 am
Steve
The first salvos directed at Thomas were in regards to his opinion in the decision to overturn the damages awarded to the defendent in the Louisiana case that Jay referenced. As to the later things on Thomas, you have a point.
————————–
Normal
Nah, not just limited to the narrow minded. Preconceived notions and ideals have a way of biting everybody in the arse every now and then. I think we’re all guilty of that at times.
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
11:29 am
Not much to add to this discussion. I don’t know of anyone who supports corrupt prosecutors. Even Scout had some harsh words this AM. Moving on to other, more general problems in our court system:
Maybe I have not suggested my plan for tort litigation reform on this blog – model after the worker’s compensation program that has brought order out of chaos. Publish a schedule of payments deemed appropriate – thus removing the lottery wheel aspect of litigation –
ragnar–I’m surprised Keep didn’t bite on this nugget and explain to you how those multi-million dollar verdicts are actually GOOD for society. Keeps everyone honest that way.
My strongest suggestion for reforming our legal system is to prevent the press from publishing the name of people charged with crimes until after they are convicted. Britain does it this way, which I think is more fairer. That way, you avoid people being punished in the court of public opinion before they are actually convicted of a crime.
Jay, if you’re still here, maybe you can put up a defense of our over-aggressive press. I’m sure you will agree that a person’s rep can never be fully restored after their name has been dragged through the mud.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
11:29 am
Bro – I never took you for a prima donna. But hey, I guess there are those here that know you better than you know yourself.
getalife
March 16th, 2012
11:32 am
Getting rid of internet porn and drilling will fix everything
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
11:33 am
Some of you people are exactly like the people you claim to hate and say are idiots.
Steve (and Adam)–You guys ever look in the mirror much??
Taxi Smith
March 16th, 2012
11:38 am
Our current Attorney General could use a little looking into also. Remember, power corrupts; always has, always will. Left, Right or Center, they’re all succeptible to corruption. (Even, I might add, editorial columnists.)
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 16th, 2012
11:38 am
Good morning Bruno…It is still “morning”, right?
Enjoyed our discussion yesterday and in gave me a lot to think about….but I still think you are wrong…
… and I hope we can still be friends. Really! It’s just my old hippie liberal self askin” 
Jack
March 16th, 2012
11:39 am
Stevens was a rock in somebody’s shoe and he ticked off too many people trying to build that bridge. Kinda like the lawyer in Clinton’s inner circle that shot himself. Justice ain’t blind.
Lumpkin
March 16th, 2012
11:39 am
Gee, did Justice Thomas act alone or were there four others with him?
Don't Forget
March 16th, 2012
11:40 am
I don’t think Brocephus is pre-madonna. She was born in 1958. He’s younger than that.
Adam
March 16th, 2012
11:44 am
Bruno: Steve (and Adam)–You guys ever look in the mirror much??
Please explain what you’re trying to get at.
(ir)Rational
March 16th, 2012
11:45 am
Adam – I think he is implying that you should hate yourself. But I don’t want to put words in his mouth.
Paul
March 16th, 2012
11:48 am
Don’t Forget
“I don’t think Brocephus is pre-madonna. She was born in 1958. He’s younger than that.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFePVulqYSc
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
11:52 am
Getting rid of internet porn and drilling will fix everything
Won’t getting rid of internet porn get rid of drilling?
————————–
I don’t think Brocephus is pre-madonna. She was born in 1958. He’s younger than that.
Just a bit…
getalife
March 16th, 2012
11:56 am
Won’t getting rid of internet porn get rid of drilling?
It’s the gop platform but what about fracking to internet porn?
Don't Forget
March 16th, 2012
11:56 am
~(_8^(I)
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
11:57 am
Enjoyed our discussion yesterday and in gave me a lot to think about….but I still think you are wrong…
… and I hope we can still be friends. Really! It’s just my old hippie liberal self askin”
Normal–I’ve never made agreeing with me a condition of friendship, either here on the blog or in real life. Because I realized long ago that good people can draw different conclusions due to our different perspectives. The old 6 blind men and the elephant situation. As humans, we are limited to a specific point of view–our own–and I think wise people realize that and don’t demand that the rest of the world sees things their way.
I think a great example of this can be found in the earlier discussion about whether Jesus was a Lib or a Con. As different bloggers demonstrated, it’s possible to pigeonhole Him by looking at selected verses. He definitely embodied Unconditional Love through his admonitions to take care of the poor. This is the part that motivates the Libs to claim Him as one of their own. Yet, at the same time, He also embodied Conditional Love by stating that He was not there to do away with the Law, and that not everyone was going to pass the Final Judgment. This is the part that motivates the Cons to claim Him as one of their own. The real truth, of course, is the elephant. Jesus, as the Perfect Person, embodied all of those qualities simultaneously. I believe that wise people understand that.
Paul
March 16th, 2012
11:58 am
getalife
It sounds the same but I think it’s different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7KcpgQKo2I
Adam
March 16th, 2012
11:59 am
The GOP’s… *drilling*… platform?
getalife
March 16th, 2012
11:59 am
What the frak Paul?
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 16th, 2012
12:00 pm
The “internet porn” thing brings a question to mind…y’all know those Peterbilt trucks? How do they do that?
They BOTH suck
March 16th, 2012
12:00 pm
Bro
Like the new moniker…….. Glad to see you are coming into your own realization and actualization……
That name is funny,,
since 3/16…….. hahahahahaha
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:00 pm
Won’t getting rid of internet porn get rid of drilling?
I don’t know, Brosephus. I think studies have shown the opposite. The more time spent looking at porn leads to less drilling. That’s why the ladies don’t like it.
Moderate Line
March 16th, 2012
12:02 pm
Jay
March 16th, 2012
10:24 am
“These cases are why the right is so leery of an expanded government. The government has almost unlimited resources to go after individuals.
I have to disagree with you, Moderate. Conservatives in both the judicial and legislative branches tend to want to strengthen the hand of prosecutors, i.e, the government. Here in Georgia, they oppose adequate funding of public defenders, including those handling death-penalty cases. They are generally not at all sympathetic to the defendant whose liberty, property and even life are threatened by government, and instead their sympathies lie heavily with government against that individual.
I would agree and disagree with you. The right basic assumption is the government is bad. However, the right also has an assumption that criminals need to be persecuted. In the case of law enforcement they tend to favor the persecution in terms of thing like reading people their rights but I have never seen anyone on the right defend the persecution in withholding evidence or fabricating evidence. Also, a large percentage of the right which are libertarians are not all that supportive of law enforcement.
Plus the ordinal concept of prosecution immunity was invented in 1951. In fact to place Clarence Thomas in context the court in 1997 ruled in Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that a prosecutor who perjured herself when certifying certain facts necessary to obtain an arrest warrant was not absolutely immune from suit. It would seem even the right wing of the court did not support giving the prosecution immunity.
The case you cited concerning Clarence Thomas was whether the DA should have or did not train the attorneys not whether they were immune.
http://www.section1983blog.com/2009/09/brief-summary-of-prosecutorial-immunity.html
Adam
March 16th, 2012
12:03 pm
So, instead of the economy, or the transportation bill, or some other form of governing…. let’s talk about PORN!
Social issues again, only THIS time we’ve SURELY got a winner!
What is WITH you people? Obsessed with sex much? We all know, thanks to Rush, that you were thinking about sex sex sex regarding contraception. Now let’s move on to porn? You wonder why you’re not taken seriously?
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
12:03 pm
The GOP’s… *drilling*… platform?
So, that’s what the “Drill baby drill” and “Drill here, drill now” really alludes to… That’s pure genius. I’m gonna have to get me a drill baby drill shirt. I wonder if I could get that phrase put on one of those tshirts that have the stick people doing all the different sex positions.
The “internet porn” thing brings a question to mind…y’all know those Peterbilt trucks? How do they do that?
It takes a real “Man” to work in that factory.
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
12:05 pm
They BOTH
Well, I never realized it until near the bottom of page 3 on this thread. What’s a man supposed to do when faced with the truth?
————————-
Bruno
Depends on how it’s used. When used to research new things, porn can enhance drilling. All one needs is new permits to expand drilling operations.
HDB
March 16th, 2012
12:07 pm
Just to let you know that it happens more than you think…..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/michael-hash_n_1349990.html
Michael Wayne Hash Free After Judge Slams Official Misconduct in Murder Case, Tosses Life Sentence
A Virginia man sentenced to life in prison in 2001 savored his first night of freedom Wednesday after a federal judge overturned his murder conviction, and lambasted police and prosecutors for “outrageous misconduct” in the case.
In May 2000, police in rural Culpeper County, Va., charged Michael Wayne Hash, then 19, in the gruesome shooting death of an elderly neighbor four years earlier.
In a blistering 65-page opinion published Feb. 28, Senior U.S. District Court Judge James C. Turk slammed investigators and prosecutors in the county for a “series of lies and failures to disclose exculpatory evidence.” Prosecutors withheld failed polygraph tests of two crucial prosecution witnesses, and did not disclose that another witness, a jailhouse informant, repeatedly lied on the stand.
The case represented a “miscarriage of justice” and an “extreme malfunction in the state criminal justice system,” Turk wrote.
A special prosecutor appointed to handle the case has six months to decide whether to retry Hash, Turk said in his opinion. In the meantime, Hash will remain free, after a county judge released him Wednesday afternoon on a $10,000 unsecured bond.
Hash, 31, arrived at the courthouse in shackles wearing a striped prison uniform, and left in street clothes.
“Yesterday was a wonderful day,” said his parents, Jeff and Pam Hash, in a statement Thursday to The Huffington Post. “We were able to take Michael home and have our first family dinner in almost 12 years.”
“Right now, we’re looking forward to the day when Michael’s name is finally cleared and this nightmare is behind us,” they said.
Gary Close, the prosecutor who tried the case, abruptly resigned as the Culpeper County district attorney after the judge’s opinion. In a resignation letter, he called his office an “ethical and fair institution.”
“Culpeper should be proud of their work,” he said.
Hash’s attorneys declined to comment on the substance of the case until it is finally resolved. But legal experts said the behavior of prosecutors and police represented a gross abuse of authority.
“It’s shocking,” said Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Law School and an expert on wrongful convictions. “This one was the trifecta. You name the type of misconduct, it all happened here.”
No physical evidence tied Hash to the 1996 murder, which stumped police for four years. In 2000, after the election of a new sheriff, investigators arrested Hash and two other teenagers, and charged them in the crime.
One-Eyed-Poet
March 16th, 2012
12:07 pm
Unfortunately Jay this is standard operating procedure in our judicial system. As truly honest people don’t become prosecutors, judges, politicians, law enforcement officers nor journalists and remain honest. For the entire system is corrupt at its very core and corrupts absolutely and needs to be swept away in a rising tide of blood.
Paul
March 16th, 2012
12:09 pm
Brosephus
“I’m gonna have to get me a drill baby drill shirt. I wonder if I could get that phrase put on one of those tshirts that have the stick people doing all the different sex positions.”
Where is Bosch when we need him?
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:09 pm
Please explain what you’re trying to get at.
See my 11:57. Your ridiculous sweeping statements about all Cons only make you look like an ass. Do you really believe deep in your heart that the average Con is any different from the average Lib, either here or in the world at large??
They BOTH suck
March 16th, 2012
12:10 pm
Bruno
“I think studies have shown the opposite. The more time spent looking at porn leads to less drilling. That’s why the ladies don’t like it”
Was that a self study or did you read that in a Playboy article?
Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?
March 16th, 2012
12:10 pm
Bruno to ragnar–I’m surprised Keep didn’t bite on this nugget and explain to you how those multi-million dollar verdicts are actually GOOD for society.
Presumptuous to speak for me Bruno but not surprising. But don’t be too smug to think you are truly out of this. If we are talking professional licensing issues and policing, we could spend a lot of time discussing medical malpractice and the protections the profession has lobbied for to keep their malpractice records out of the public eye. How’s your AVVO rating these days?
They BOTH suck
March 16th, 2012
12:11 pm
“Your ridiculous sweeping statements about all Cons only make you look like an ass. Do you really believe deep in your heart that the average Con is any different from the average Lib, either here or in the world at large??”
Bruno: I was attempting to convey that to you yesterday on another issue but you shunned me……. My whole day went to hell……..
They BOTH suck
March 16th, 2012
12:14 pm
Bruno
Thought you were headed to Biloxi….. Are you already there and bored?
carlosgvv
March 16th, 2012
12:16 pm
Normal – 11:15
And who are you? His designated defender? Can he not speak for himself?
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:20 pm
How’s your AVVO rating these days?
I’ve been in practice for nearly 26 years with no malpractice (or any other) claims. Not going to go into detail here, but my “specialty” has extremely low malpractice rates. I pay more for my car insurance.
Any more brilliant suppositions, Counselor??
Bruno: I was attempting to convey that to you yesterday on another issue but you shunned me……. My whole day went to hell……..
TBS–There are only a small handful of posters here who I intentionally avoid, e.g. Keep, TaxPayer, Joe Mama, and Redneck Convert. If I didn’t respond to something, it was likely a time issue. Sorry.
carlosgvv
March 16th, 2012
12:21 pm
Brosephus – Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
A sense of humor,comrade!!!
Mudfoot
March 16th, 2012
12:21 pm
Regarding how much of this goes on within lower-profile cases, rest assured it is rampant. The Justice Dept. has ensured that they hold all the cards when prosecuting an individual. They can (and will) lie to your face repeatedly, threaten you and your loved ones, detain you almost indefinitely without charge while depriving you of any contact with your atty or anyone else (you simply disappear)… the list of advantages for the prosecution in a federal case is long and substantial and blatantly unfair to the citizen… and that’s the way it’s been for decades. Legislation over the past 10 years or so has only worsened the situation. Sadly, people have no cards to play beyond retaining a lawyer at relatively large expense and pleading the fifth in hopes the prosecution would defeat itself.
There’s an older book called “Busted by the Feds” that would be good reading for anyone interested in learning more. I don’t remember the authors name but the book is an eye-opener for most people
They BOTH suck
March 16th, 2012
12:23 pm
Bruno
Just busting your chops…………. have a good trip if you are still leaving town