Martha's Hard Time Contest Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Martha's Hard Time Contest

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Poet who wrote (61)	7/18/2004 8:54:31 PM
From: stockman_scott	of 79

Statement by Walter Dellinger ______________________ July 16, 2004 Walter Dellinger, appellate counsel for Ms. Stewart, is the Douglas B. Maggs Professor of Law at Duke University and head of the national appellate practice at O'Melveny & Myers, LLP. He has served as constitutional adviser to the President (1993), Assistant Attorney General of the United States (1993-1996) and as acting Solicitor General (1996-97). __________________________ This verdict should not stand. There are at least five major issues that we will raise in the Court of Appeals. Any one of them standing alone would be a basis for reversal. Together, they make a strong case that the trial was unfair and the result must be reversed. It is truly extraordinary when you have perjury committed at a trial - both by an outspoken juror and by a key government witness. First we have a man who lied his way onto the jury by falsely denying his prior arrest for a gender-based crime. Then a key government witness -- himself a high-ranking employee of a law enforcement agency who functioned as part of the prosecution team -- commits flagrant perjury on the stand. Even more shocking than Larry Stewart's perjury is the fact that four other officials of the Secret Service, including two Bureau Chiefs, knew about the perjury for months and did nothing about it. The juror misconduct and government official perjury so undermined the integrity of this process that this result simply cannot stand. On top of that there are three other very significant issues - starting with the fact that she was effectively tarred by the prosecutors with repeated suggestions of illegal insider trading when that never happened and was never charged. That mistake was exacerbated by another charge that never should have been made - that it was criminal stock manipulation to argue for her own innocence - a charged that was dropped only at the end of the trial after the prejudicial damage had been done. And there is a major issue for the Court of Appeals to determine: whether the prosecution must prove that one knew that a false statement was criminal. And since the trial was completed, two landmark Supreme Court decisions have come down which will affect her case -- one about the right to confront witnesses and one that calls the sentencing guidelines into question. We plan to seek an expedited appeal. marthatalks.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next