Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (10741)	4/7/2009 5:26:11 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 103300

The prosecution team was replaced and, last week, new prosecutors acknowledged that key evidence was withheld from Stevens. That evidence included notes from an interview with the government's star witness, contractor Bill Allen. On the witness stand, Allen said a mutual friend told him not to expect Stevens to pay for the home renovation project because Stevens only wanted the bill to cover himself. It was damaging testimony that made Stevens look like a politician scheming to cover his tracks while accepting freebies. But in the previously undisclosed meeting with prosecutors, Allen said he had no recollection of such a discussion. And he valued the renovation work at far less than what prosecutors alleged at the trial. "I was sick in my stomach," attorney Brendan Sullivan said Tuesday, recalling seeing the new evidence for the first time. "How could they do this? How could they abandon their responsibilities? How could they take on a very decent man, Ted Stevens, who happened to be a United States senator, and do this?"

To: Thomas M. who wrote (10741)	4/7/2009 5:27:34 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 103300

Last week it was reported that prosecutor Brenda Morris, in violation of law, withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. She has continued behaving lawlessly: Judge Emmet Sullivan threw out two big pieces of evidence in the Justice Department's prosecution of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) after it was disclosed that prosecutors failed to provide defense attorneys with all the information they needed to put on their case. Stevens' attorneys are also expected to offer a motion for acquittal on Thursday, once the government finishes putting on its case for conviction. Stevens' defense team has repeatedly sought to have the case dismissed or a mistrial declared due to alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Judge Sullivan is throwing out a portion of the business records from Veco Corp., whose former CEO, Bill Allen, allegedly spent $188,000 renovating Stevens' home in Girdwood, Alaska. Two former Veco employees, Rocky Williams and Dave Anderson, are on the company's records as having spent significant time working on Stevens' home in late 2000 and early 2001. She even hid a witness from the defendants: But prosecutors never presented testimony from Williams, who was suppose to be the foreman on the home project, and instead shepherded him out of Washington right before the trial started, all without informing Stevens' attorneys. The judge seems very frustrated with Ms. Morris: "Jurors will be instructed that the government presented evidence to those jurors that the government knew was not true," Judge Sullivan told both sides this afternoon. Will the judge refer Ms. Morris to the State Bar for disciplinary proceedings? If not, why not? UPDATE: There are many other posts about Ms. Morris' prosecutorial misconduct here. federalism.typepad.com

To: Thomas M. who wrote (10741)	4/7/2009 5:28:28 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 103300

DOJ Lawyers William Welch II, Brenda Morris, and Patricia Stemler Held in Contempt of Court [UPDATE: More posts on Brenda Morris' misconduct are here.] I've been following the exploits of Brenda Morris, the lead prosecutor in the Ted Stevens case. She and her boss, WIlliam Welch II, have engaged in several acts of prosecutorial misconduct. Finally a federal judge stood up to them: In a status hearing Friday, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan held four Justice Department lawyers in contempt for failing to turn over 33 documents related to post-trial motions in the case of former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who was convicted of corruption charges in October. The contempt finding was directed at William Welch II, chief of DOJ's Public Integrity Section; Brenda Morris, principal deputy chief of the section and lead prosecutor in the case; trial attorney Kevin Driscoll; and Patricia Stemler, chief of the Criminal Division's Appellate Section. ... When Driscoll failed to satisfy the judge with an answer as to why the documents weren't turned over, the judge said he was holding the Justice Department lawyers in contempt. "Is the Department of Justice taking court orders seriously these days?" the judge asked, bewildered. Will the State Bar investigate either of these two unethical prosecutors? If not, why not? Will the Department of Justice weed out these bad seeds? If not, why not? If Brenda Morris and William Welch II are engaging in prosecutorial misconduct when litigating against Williams & Connolly, imagine what they are doing to less capable lawyers. (!) Morris and Welch must to be stopped. Immediately. Here are my other posts about these two scoundrels: * Corruption in Senator Stevens' Corruption Trial; * Brenda Morris Commits More Prosecutorial Misconduct in Stevens Trial; * Brenda Morris (along with William Welch II) is At It Again. How much more will the State Bar allow these unethical prosecutors to get away with? How can the Department of Justice allow the leaders of its Public Integrity Division to have no integrity? UPDATE: Kevin Driscoll is off the hook: MINUTE ORDER as to THEODORE F. STEVENS. On February 13, 2009, during a hearing held in open court, the Court held four attorneys with the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), including Attorney Kevin Driscoll, in contempt for failure to comply with this Court's January 21, 2009 and February 3, 2009 Orders, after the attorneys acknowledged that they had no reason for failing to comply with the Orders, they simply had not complied. Upon reflection, however, the Court will not hold Mr. Driscoll in contempt. Mr. Driscoll did not sign the relevant pleadings, has not filed an appearance in this case, and appears to have been brought in by his supervisors only recently for the limited purpose of addressing a discrete issue. Moreover, the three senior DOJ attorneys present at the hearing did sign the relevant pleadings and have been working on the specific issues related to the Court's January 21, 2009 and February 3,2009 Orders for months. Therefore, under the circumstances, it was those attorneys', and not Mr. Driscoll's, responsibility to ensure that the government complied with the Court's Orders. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 14, 2009. (AS) (Entered: 02/14/2009) federalism.typepad.com