One thing you can add to the list of why you hated the Bush administration? They engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during Sen. Ted Stevens trial by failing to turn over exculpatory material to the defense. Because of this, Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to drop all charges and let the corrupt master of the intertubes go scot-free. Holder also considered Stevens’ age and the fact that he no longer serves in the Senate. A conspiracy theorist might guess that the Republicans sabotaged their own prosecution in order to let Stevens get off, but this is a huge scarlet letter on the resumes of the prosecutors. They actually did this because they were either stupid or they just wanted to win too badly.
The end result, however, is one more example of a powerful white guy committing a crime and not having to serve jail time.
While I think your analysis of the end result is accurate-and it pisses me off, too-this could be Holder’s way of cleaning out the place. During Bush’s Reign of Terror there was a lot of prosecutorial misconduct. Could be Holder is “cleaning house.”
I think Bush successfully staffed the DOJ with a bunch of power-crazed loonies who didn’t think the rules applied to them. It started at the top and the attitude wound all the way down through the system – in Justice and in the FBI.
It’s going to take years to clean the crap out of the system – if it can be cleaned out at all. But it sounds like Holder is doing the right thing here, even if it means Stevens gets to walk and will probably spend the next few years appearing on every sympathetic media outlet he can find to protest his innocence and try to clean up his image.
Wow. Prosecutors voluntarily wiping out a conviction before the judge has even ordered it. Wow. I’ve never heard of that when the ‘exculpatory’ evidence is underwhelming, let alone even when it’s overwhelming.
This would never happen to the average criminal defendant, i.e. a lowly black man having his life and his family’s life shattered because he used cocaine or something. Never. Prosecutors are so reluctant to give up a conviction that even when they have overwhelming proof that someone innocent has been convicted they will oppose setting aside a conviction. There are plenty of cases of prosecutors having DNA evidence pointing to a faulty conviction and prosecutors, almost without exception, refuse to set aside a conviction.
Here the prosecutors gave up before the judge forced them to do anything.
For the most punitive nation on Earth letting it’s most powerful go free when average people are being slammed is immoral and disgusting.
This would never happen to a normal criminal defendant.
what sfhawkguy said.
At first i was pissed at holder, but now I’m pissed at the prosecutors and indeed the entire system.
I think of the thousands of poor and indigent defendants, especially in hang ’em high texas, who will NEVER see their records wiped clean for prosecutorial misconduct. now will you EVER see these prosecutorse sent to jail for what truly IS a crime.
it makes me sick to my stomach. we’re a nation of laws all right, except the laws only apply to the little people.
Holder is a good friend of the judge. It was also a personal embarrassment to hear the almost daily admonishments from the bench, his pal. Certainly this will send a message to federal prosecutors that he’s personally vested in the quality of prosecutions, not their political expediency.
I wouldn’t put a ‘fix’ beyond the realm of possibility: The ‘Any sane career-loving lawyer would NEVER…’ argument is just the sort of thing a Big Lie can hide behind.
The fact Holder knows the judge and Obama is in the same club with the defendant point to selective and preferential treatment; not a willingness on the Obama administration to tackle prosecutorial misconduct. It simply reinforces the impression that this is not a change in the way the DOJ will operate but simply a one time application of a principle to help get a rich white guy out of jail that will never be applied to the vast majority of defendants that have had their rights trampled on during their convictions. Holder knows the judge so Senator Stevens gets special protection for his rights. What about the thousands of other judges out there that are also complaining about prosecutorial misconduct in their cases or are giving stern lectures to prosecutors or issuing sanctions? Will Obama and Holder sweep in and fire the prosecutors and let the defendants go? NO. They most certainly will not because those defendants are named Tyrone and they are poor black guys that don’t get the same protection for their “rights”. In their cases the DOJ and Holder and Obama will defend the prosecutors and will only let the defendant go if ordered to do so by a judge–many a prosecutor has valiantly stood behind a shady conviction, even under the threat of sanctions or ethical violations, with the full faith and backing of the U.S. D.O.J. That will not change. Don’t blow smoke up my ass and pretend that Obama helping his friend and criminal Ted Stevens is some sort of trend where Obama is going to protect criminal defendants’ rights. It’s not and it’s dishonest for the Obama partisans to be spinning it this way.
Chillax!
Unless you think the Judge was in on the grand conspiracy by powerful White men to let themselves off (transacted through the three of the most powerful black men our nation has ever seen) to let Uncle Ted off, there was plenty of misconduct to throw this thing out. He complained constantly and things were coming to a head.
And here’s the judge:
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sullivan-bio.html
Definitely upholding the rich White Guy thing, no doubt about it!
I never claimed a conspiracy and I never claimed the judge was acting improperly. The judge may have been compelled to set aside the conviction. We don’t know how the judge was ultimately going to rule because the government did what it almost never does; it caved before the judge issued his opinion. It’s not even seeking to retry him with the supposed ‘exculpatory evidence. This would never happen to a poor black defendant. Never. You’re the conspiracy fool if you think this is some sort of statement on how the Obama administration is going to deal with prosecutorial misconduct. Ha! I’m laughing my ass off just thinking of you making the argument with a straight face: that Obama is going to deliver a message to prosecutors to stand up for criminal defendants’ rights by selectively swooping into one case involving his friend and colleague to send a message that he hasn’t showed the slightest inclination in doing for the vast majority of citizens that face the exact same “injustice” Senator Stevens is facing. I think your average black criminal defendant will be able to understand this incredible injustice much easier than you can; and I don’t think that defendant is going to feel better because his prosecutor, his judge, and his president happen to be black.
You are fighting a straw man that’s not even in the room, who said that stuff?
Are you saying that this is the case that black defendents are watching to judge the quality of justice they are receiving?
I agree with some of the things you say, but not the huge jumps of logic (that last point is more ironic than you might know)!
Could it be that:
Here is one of thousands and thousands examples of normal people (minorities, too!) getting off for the same reason: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_20070611/ai_n19291624/
You’re taking one case an making huge generalizations and assumptions, when the public story is pretty normal. Have you reviewed it’s evidence and merits?
I am familiar enough with the system as I have done a little criminal defense work (including post-conviction relief)–although that was a while ago. Also, I do know some lawyers that are involved in similar cases as we speak! And, because I care about his issue and am reasonably informed, I know enough to:
And you can bet your bottom dollar that under similar circumstances the Obama DOJ will be arguing that Tyrone should not have his sentence set aside because it was harmless error and will certainly argue that he should be retried with the new evidence.
For e.g., let’s see what Obama’s judicial nominations say about this issue. I bet you they are tough on crime judges that believe it should be almost impossible to set aside a conviction.
It’s foolish to blow smoke up our asses and pretend that Obama is defending the broader principle of upholding criminal defendants’ rights. If you have any evidence where Obama is doing this on a large scale or implementing procedures that apply to cases other than his buddy Ted Stevens please let me know. I’m interested and would be pleasantly surprised if Obama is going to buck the normal state of affairs where the Democrats prove how tough they are by piling on the weak and powerless and take away more criminal defense rights. Obama looks like a ‘tough on crime’ guy to me except when it comes to going after telecoms, his fellow politicians (except the Gov. of Il.), and Wall St.
I don’t know all the details of this case, but it reeks of preferential treatment.
I just think it’s weird that this of all cases is supposed to make someone on three strikes for something silly feel one way or another.
I’m pretty sure it’s having everyone you know churned through the system constantly for the purposes of enslavement by the prison industrial complex that gets people’s goats, but maybe it’s just me.
Throwing out an embarrassingly prosecuted case on some old guy for accepting statuary is probably not the blindest justice has been, but it’s a stretch to say this is the sort of thing that, if ended, would matter one iota to a targeted minority.
You’re right. Most minorities that are imprisoned have their own things to worry about and they’re not going to lose much sleep over Sen. Ted Stevens. I don’t mind mercy (in fact that’s what this country needs a lot more of) and I don’t take pleasure in punishing a 85 year old man. That’s why I could never be a prosecutor.
This could be another manifestation of “let’s close the door on the Bush administration and forget about it”.
I must be one of teh conspiracy-theorists (adjusts tin-foil cap)…. Watching the process as it happened, it just seems the best explanation for what came up leading into, and through the trial, that the investigators and prosecutors didn’t want to see ‘one of their own’ go down, despite clear evidence of wrongdoing.
They were probably amazed they got a conviction, when it seems obvious they were gunning for a mistrial or acquittal
It’s rare that the Justice Department acknowledges an error requiring a new trial. But what makes this particularly remarkable, is that the Justice Department is saying they will not even prosecute again.
This makes me suspect that the misconduct here raises a serious doubt whether they could convict on retrial.
The more I think about it, the more brilliant it is. We stand up for the rule of law, we expose Bush’s DoJ as incompetent, and we gain some very personally-felt appreciation from Republican Senators who adored Stevens. They may never show their gratitude, but at some level they will know that Obama did the right thing.
Stevens is a crook, but he was badly prosecuted, and the law is the law.
I’m with you. I think this is a victory for the law in our land. Stevens will get what’s coming eventually, I feel. And if he doesn’t, it’s not the end of the world. I’d rather see the law practicised correctly!!
So why are Siegelman and Minor still in jail?
Okay, Siegelman is out on appeal. Why hasn’t his case been thrown out?
They did it on purpose.