Nice job, prosecution. Let's fail to give the defense potentially exculpatory evidence that wouldn't have damaged your case very badly so that there's grounds for a mistrial.
Well played.
Nice job, prosecution. Let's fail to give the defense potentially exculpatory evidence that wouldn't have damaged your case very badly so that there's grounds for a mistrial.
Well played.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
you forgot the fact that it'll give him enough time to get his share of the "golden parachute...er bailout"
"The mark of a great player is in his ability to come back. The great champions have all come back from defeat." - Sam Snead
Well, he already voted for it.
Seriously, this was a bonehead maneuver by the prosecution. One of a more suspicious mind than mine would almost think that they were trying to lose this case.
The information in question: The former president of VECO said in a deposition that he thought that if he had presented Stevens with a bill Stevens would have paid it.
1) This information should have been turned over to the prosecution immediately, as it is potentially exculpatory (though I don't think it is).
2) I don't think this information WAS exculpatory because the issue isn't whether or not Stevens would have paid for the improvements to his house, it's whether or not the improvements were a gift and whether or not he knowingly failed to report these gifts.
3) It may not have been admissable anyhow, as it's conjecture on Allen's part.
Absolutely, ginormously stupid on the part of the prosecution.
I'd say that there's a better than even chance that the judge either declares a mistrial or dismisses the charges entirely.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
time to cut back on the Law and Order
“If a team is to reach its potential, each player must be willing to subordinate his personal goals to the good of the team.”
Bud Wilkinson
Who is this Fing Stevens? I thought it was Ted?
Why on earth would you withold any info when in most instances you probably had a convistion? Hell, I'd be giving them detailed notes of his bathroom habits and what he ate during depositions, etc...
Wish I had a fishing buddy who would let me slide on just lunches and beer.
Everything progressives do is aimed at weakening democracy, capitalism and the social and cultural institutions that support those things...... They are about subjugating people and being a ruling class.
That's what I'm saying, man. I mean the Justice Department had a pretty airtight case and Stevens' whole strategy has been based around trying to get a procedural mistrial. Then they just HAND one to them.
Grrrr.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
The trial continues, surprisingly.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)