Moussaoui trial falling apart

R

Rob P.

Moderator
Apparently the gov't has gone and mucked up the trial against Moussaoui AGAIN. The judge in seriously PO'd about it too.

It seems that some idjit in the FAA defied a court order and decided to do some witness tampering. Mass emailing the witnesses transcripts of the trial and coaching the witnesses in their testimony by suggesting that they be sure to say certain phrases.

Big no-no. This on top of a mistrial eligible oopsie last week where the prosecution suggested that someone who fails to confess to a crime is automatically guilty. Never mind the 5th amendment against self incrimination issue; they're guilty and send 'em to the chair for it too.

I've dealt with so many prosecutors who go so far overboard in their zeal to prosecute someone/anyone that this story isn't so amazing to me. What's sad is that some of the witnesses are for the defense and the suggested "remedy" will be to exclude them from testifying. Lets see now, some prosecutor contacts a defense witness, tampers with that witnesses potential testimony, and now the witness must be excluded? Sounds like an easy way to defeat any defense - just tamper with all the defense witnesses then exclude them so there isn't anyone who can speak for the defense. That means only prosecution witnesses get to testify with no rebuttal. Right?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060313/ap_on_re_us/moussaoui_25
 
This kind of nonsense is far too common for my tastes. I think is will stop when individuals pay a public and career-jeopardizing price. Aggressiveness is a good thang when doing within the confines of law. When done outside the confines of law the perp is no different than a vigilantee. The situation will only get worse as long as careers are not damaged or terminated.

My life in the corporate world has taught me that it is quite therapeutic to step over a body on the way to the parking lot. Tends to clarify priorities.
 
Judge Brinkima is a Clinton appointed liberal, check out the story at NEWSMAX.COM

Looks like Brinkima is the one who is messing it up, in favor a terrorist no less. This judge has a history of letting killers go easy, just like her liberal boss Billy, he freed alot of felons from prison.
 
carbiner-
That may be true, but it has a familiar ring to it. Whenever .gov gets caught with it's hand in the cookie jar, it must be someone else's fault or we're missing "the big picture".

Examples from recent years (both sides):
MonicaGate was "Ken Starr's fault".
NSA Wiretapping questions are "undermining our National Security".


Did the Judge blow it in the Sami Al-Arian Florida terror case also?
What about the rulings that have gone against this administration in Guantanamo?

The fact of the matter is that with all its increased Police Powers, this Administration has an abominable record for identifying, tracking, prosecuting and convicting terrorists. ALL these cases can't possibly be "someone else's fault".

Rings my skeptic bell big-time.
Rich
 
I must admitt Rich I still get the jitters when I hear Clintons name mixed in with legal issues, judges, etc.
I have little faith in progressive judges when it come to Americas security. I do agree with you though on Bushs record of track and find terrorists.

As far as Gitmo, I won't say much at this point, Bush has yet to show/prove what and why, and now we are getting what I believe to be very colorful stories from the media. Human rights watch, greenpeace and others are doing their best to make Gitmo look like a death camp. Info from both sides is too distorted.
 
Gitmo is no death camp.

But one can piece together the mix of humans that might be held there by an Administration this inept to real intelligence gathering and this blind to separation of wheat from chaff. How many interred there have we let go? What were their offenses? On average, how long did it take us to clear them?
Rich
 
Judge Brinkima is a Clinton appointed liberal, check out the story at NEWSMAX.COM

Looks like Brinkima is the one who is messing it up, in favor a terrorist no less. This judge has a history of letting killers go easy, just like her liberal boss Billy, he freed alot of felons from prison
Click to expand...

What hogwash.

The fact that Brinkema was appointed by clinton is irrelevant to the trial and the fact that the gov't is screwing up big time.

She ORDERED the govt not to contact the witnesses and give them transcripts or other testimony from the trial. So what does the gov't do? Send mass emails to the witnesses and suggest that they testify by using certain words in order to close up the "gaps" in the gov't case.

How does being a "clinton appointed liberal" have anything to do with the gov't disobeying a court order? Being a "clinton appointed liberal" has nothing to do with the existence of the order either. It's a standing order for all atty's in every case to deter what's called witness tampering; which is a felony.

Whining about Brinkema being appointed by Clinton does nothing but assert that pond scum is better than mud because it floats instead of decays on the bottom. Who cares who appointed her, the judge gives orders and the gov't better obey them.

Unfortunately I've seen this scenario start to happen more and more. Especially since the remedy is to exclude the witnesses. If the gov't contacts ALL the defense witnesses, then after exclusion, the defense has no witnesses to counter the gov'ts case. Easy win for the gov't.
 
If the judge was at all interested in a fair trial, it would be a contempt of court charge against the offenders, dismiss the entire jury, and start over. Not likely to happen, however.
 
Why?
It's not the Jury that was compromised, it's the witnesses. They HAVE been dismissed. What else is there to do other than your suggestion of charging the offenders (with Felony Witness Tampering, I'd argue)?
Rich
 
I see your point, Rich. The only reason I would dismiss the jury is if they have actually heard testimony from those who were illegally coached. You can't unlearn what you have already heard.
If that has not been the case, ok. And I absolutely agree with your stand on felony witness tampering.

There has been too many cases where the prosecution has tampered with evidence, invented evidence, and coerced testimony from defendants, witnesses and such.

Good thing I am not a judge, because I would have the prosecutors serve the maximum sentence the defendant could expect to receive if found guilty. There are too many cases of "fair" trials being nothing more than "bought" justice, and I have had enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top