We’ve spent our time here in the trenches talking about the inherent tendency of power to abuse. But there are few in our democracy who combine the traits of ambition, power, intelligence and practically limitless resources as do federal prosecutors. On that, Clarice Feldman has this to say:
I am dismayed to learn that so many people are under the impression that the (Alaska Senator) Ted Stevens case was dropped because of some mere technicality, and not because the case against him was riddled with perjured testimony and evidence of his innocence was unlawfully hidden by the prosecution team. I ask if you hear anyone say anything so foolish that you set them straight.
One of the DoJ prosecutors in the Stevens case was Brenda Morris, who has been held in contempt by a federal judge for her misconduct in that prosecution. Morris was also a supervisor in the Scooter Libby case.
And as Feldman points out, there’s a great deal more digging to be done before we know how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Read it all.
Here in North Carolina we had the notorius Duke “rape” case by the Durham County Prosecutor, Nifong, who was using it to rile the Blacks to aid his re-election campaign (the only rapist in the case was Nifong). The Bar Association acted after some behind the scenes pushing by the Prosecutor’s Association, and they disbarred him (they were scared the legislature might act). Alas, such misconduct is all to common among prosecutors on both State a Federal level.
The Libby prosecution was entirely political, as was the Martha Stewart fiasco.
Because of the power the wield I am of the opinion that such a prosecutor should stand trial and if convicted receive the same sentence the falsely accused would hav received if they had been convicted. Let one or two go to prison and you will see the prosecutors change their ways. Disbarment and the cost of the prosecution and the defense is the minimum penalty they should suffer.
I’m not so sure about the Martha Stewart case, but the others are obvious abuses for which some people should be taken out back for a session with the ugly stick.
The fact that Brenda Morris was involved in both the Libby case, which was a disgrace, and the Sen. Stevens case speaks volumes. When will we learn all about her I wonder? If ever?
SteveC/
We could add the Ray Donovan prosecution to that list, and the “Independent Council” Walsh’s attempt to nail both Attny Gen Ed Meese and Cap Weinberger in the Iran-Contra Affair–all blatantly obvious politically motivated probes which ruined or sullied reputations and influenced Presidential elections.
There is a thought towards tort reform that loser should pay. The main target of this has been class-action lawsuits where some lawyer can bring a lawsuit on BigCorp on behalf of hundreds and BigCorp finds it’s cheaper to settle rather than fight in court.
Medical malpractice is but one area where insurance has risen mainly due to a tort system that forces money and time from both sides and the loser never has to pay.
It’s the DA’s job to prosecute, to try to win. Likewise it’s the defense lawyer’s job to try to find that technicality, that stumbling block, in the law to get their client off. They’re just doing their jobs.
But if they do so dishonestly? And it’s found out? Seems to me a system that lets a lawyer do a class-action suit and garner a percentage of the compensation for folks who didn’t even hire him ought to pay a percentage of the penalty for the ones they lose. Give them some skin in the game.
There’s an old saying that if the death penalty is possible it’s likely not against the lawyer.
It may be that it’s time they have some skin in the game.
But then, like wealth envy, it’s easy to take a position against lawyers.
– Max