Posted on 02/03/2006 11:39:53 PM PST by Daralundy
The Libby thing will be small potatoes in that shadow.
It could also give Fitzgerald ample time to reconsider his decision to prosecute...and quietly withdraw the case.
I'm doubting this booger ever makes it to trial.
They're just putting this out for the Dims who missed Fitzmas. There's nothing new and there was nothing there to begin with.
"It could also give Fitzgerald ample time to reconsider his decision to prosecute...and quietly withdraw the case."
IMO, that would be a wise move.
"I'm doubting this booger ever makes it to trial."
Oh...I hope you are right!
Well, if it's purjury, then it's no big deal! Just ask Bubba!
Mark
What's up with that?
It's to make sure that the press has plenty of time to try to link republicans to the "scandal" in the lead up to the 2006 congressional elections, as well as giving plenty of lead time for the 2008 presidential elections.
Mark
... if one of the reporters called as a witness refuses to testify, and is an essential witness. In that case, Dismissal of the charges is a sanction the court can and should apply.Congressman Billybob
Latest column: "NY Times Touts Dubious Conclusions on School Quality"
59 posted on 02/04/2006 2:01:57 PM EST by Congressman Billybob
Quite the contrast. Either the journalists are jailed, or the case is dismissed.
Except FR was calling for Bubba's hide for false testimony ....
Not a contrast at all as either or both can be used.
If a witness does not cooperate in deposition he can be sanctioned up to being ruled in contempt and locked up. If this is a crucial witness and continues to refuse to testify up to the time of the trial the case could be dismissed.
That was my impression. Maybe I mistook Congressman Billybob's point, relating to dismissal. The way he phrased it, if a reporter stiffed Fitz and the court, the case would end with no further action.
I think the below statement naturally comes off as describing a "sanction against the prosecutor," with no penalty to the recalcitrant witness.
The only way a Dismissal becomes likely is if one of the reporters called as a witness refuses to testify, and is an essential witness. In that case, Dismissal of the charges is a sanction the court can and should apply.
Let's say a prosecution witness refused in court to name a source in cross examination. The judge could strike the witness' testimony then dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
Well, if they refuse to testify, there is nothing to strike. But I do agree, absent evidence, the case goes away. But the contrast I was pointing to was the intervening action, which might be intense ...
If a witness does not cooperate in deposition he can be sanctioned up to being ruled in contempt and locked up.The "locked up" condition exists until either the judge or the recalcitrant witness cries "uncle!" I don't buy the simple "reporter refuses to testify, case goes away" scene.
A prosecution witness may answer on the stand and say "I was told about Valery Plame by someone other than Mr. Libby". In Cross the witness refuses to name the person that told him about Valery Plame. The witness has testified but deliberately withheld information the defense is asking for. The Judge would have to strike all of the witness's testimony.
Is this an example of where your previous, "If a witness does not cooperate in deposition he can be sanctioned up to being ruled in contempt and locked up." arises?
And am I to understand you general premise as that if a witness witholds detailed and particular testimony, generic evidence on the same subject by that witness is stricken as a result?
A prosecution witness may answer on the stand and say "I was told about Valery Plame by someone other than Mr. Libby". In Cross the witness refuses to name the person that told him about Valery Plame. ... The Judge would have to strike [I was told about Valery Plame by someone other than Mr. Libby]
I say "it depends" on whether the generic is enough to make the element of the charge.
No at trial.
And am I to understand you general premise as that if a witness withholds detailed and particular testimony, generic evidence on the same subject by that witness is stricken as a result?
Yep, the prosecution cannot profit by the refusal of it's own witness to answer relevant questions under cross examination. Otherwise think of the trash that could be called as witnesses.
What happens to the deposition testiomny? Does it go bye-bye with the refusal at trial?
Cboldt: And am I to understand you general premise as that if a witness withholds detailed and particular testimony, generic evidence on the same subject by that witness is stricken as a result?
Yep, the prosecution cannot profit by the refusal of it's own witness to answer relevant questions under cross examination. Otherwise think of the trash that could be called as witnesses.
Hmmm. I'm thinking you haven't thought this through. I'm thinking where the government is the prosecutor in terrorism cases, and doesn't want to give details about its surveillance activity, but wants to admit the generic.
Refusing to testify at deposition can also result in dismissal of case upon motion of defense if the judge thinks the witness will never testify and the testimony is important enough. A judge would probably not suspend a trial to put a reluctant witness in jail for a while.
What happens to the deposition testiomny?
Deposition testimony is usually not admissible at trial unless the witness is dead or the trial and deposition testimony is at odds.
If the witness will not testify to certain things at trial it seems likely that he didn't talk about them in deposition either.
Bottom line is that Libby is fighting for his freedom
Refusing to testify at deposition can also result in dismissal of case ...
My simple point was that "refusal -> dismissal" has a significant pitfall or barrier in the form of contempt of court. Witnesses are in general compelled to testify. You can putz around that point if you want. I think you are being coy and goofy in our exchange, since you want to agree with billybob that a trial can be easily dismissed by witness refusing to testify. But in fact, the killing of the trial is up the the judge, who has the power to jail the recalcitrant witness until he figures it's fruitless.
Bottom line is that Libby is fighting for his freedom
Now THAT is cryptic.
Of course it is up to the judge to dismiss, but let's look at it in the real world. I doubt that a judge would suspend a jury trial while a reluctant witness rots in the joint. Since it is the prosecution's witness (a witness the Prosecution probably knew would not testify completely) the prosecution could be sanctioned up to and including striking testimony or dismissal of the case (probably without prejudice). As to the reluctant witness he could still be slapped with contempt even criminal contempt (like Susan McDougall).
Now THAT is cryptic.
No, that is incomplete. What I started to say when I accidentally hit post is:
Bottom line is that Libby is fighting for his freedom, against a run away prosecutor who lacking cause to charge anyone for the original crime is trying to save face.
Good Night.
Bottom line is there is no prosection if Libby told the truth.
Do you condone lying to investigators?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.