Posted on 11/17/2008 6:50:55 PM PST by RedRover
A three-judge appellate panel is set to hear argument Tuesday in the defamation lawsuit against Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), accused of making false statements to news reporters about a U.S. Marine and his role in the deaths of Iraqi civilians. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Judith Rogers, and Harry Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit are the panel.
Mark Zaid and Bradley Moss, counsel for Frank Wuterich, argue Murtha made “outrageous” statements about Wuterich and his comrades regarding the death of Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005. Murtha “inappropriately compared the tragic events of Haditha with the infamous war crimes and deliberate widespread massacre of civilians at My Lai in Vietnam,” the lawyers wrote in an appellate brief. Wuterich, a staff sergeant, is charged with manslaughter. Murtha reportedly called Wuterich a “cold-blooded killer.”
The D.C. Circuit must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case, which has been stayed in federal district court pending appeal. U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the deposition of Murtha as part of discovery, triggering Murtha's appeal to the D.C. Circuit. Murtha's lawyer in district court is Darrell Valdez of the U.S. Attorney's Office.
The questions on appeal include whether a congressman is acting within the scope of employment in making statements to the press about a private citizen. Valdez says Murtha is immune from a defamation suit stemming from comments to a reporter about a private citizen. Zaid and Moss reject the claim.
“This court was unwilling to proclaim such a sweeping version of absolute immunity” and ordered a deposition of Murtha, Collyer wrote in an order in December 2007. Collyer said a fact record is essential to ensure she is not making decisions in a vacuum. “The court is not as shocked as counsel at the thought of the deposition of a sitting member of Congress. Even presidents can be required to interrupt their tremendous responsibilities when civil litigation requires it.”
High Military Court orders judge to review CBS outtakes
The saga continues over whether CBS has to turn over to the government footage of an interview with Marine Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich discussing his role in the killing of a group of Iraqi citizens in Haditha, Iraq.
In a decision issued Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces sent the case back to the military judge who had initially quashed the government’s subpoena, holding that the judge should have reviewed the tapes privately before making a decision.
Wuterich was leading a Marine convoy near Haditha in November 2005 that killed 24 Iraqi citizens, including men, women and children as young as 2 years old, in the aftermath of a roadside bomb explosion. Wuterich was subsequently charged by the U.S. government with dereliction of duty and voluntary manslaughter.
In the course of the criminal investigation into Wuterich, the government sent a subpoena to CBS asking for the entire reel of footage from a 60 Minutes interview that aired last year.
In a 3-2 decision, the Court focused mainly on procedural issues. While the Court did not reach the question of whether the CBS tape is privileged, it did rule that because the tape might be important to the criminal investigation it should be reviewed privately by the judge before any questions of privilege are resolved.
“CBS conducted the interview knowing that it involved matters then under investigation. . . . The outtakes contain a majority of Appellant’s discussion of the charged offenses with CBS, and only CBS possesses those outtakes,” wrote Chief Judge Andrew Effron, who authored the majority opinion.
The court continued: “[The outtakes] constitute a potentially unique source of evidence that is not necessarily duplicated by any other material.”
CBS had argued that the account Wuterich gave the government was no different than the one he gave during the interview, and thus the outtakes were unnecessary to the investigation.
What's this B.S? Murtha has no legal right to be represented at taxpayer expense.
I’ll bet he’s wishing he went ahead and toook the bribe and got out...
The Bush DOJ has been representing Murtha from Day One on all defamation suits. That must be standard procedure but it’s really infuriating.
F*** Murtha
Thanks for the updates, Red. Looks like SSgt. Wuterich’s CM has just been strung out again. Hard to believe!
If Murtha is found to be exempt it will really say a lot towards the perfidy of the whole damn bunch. IMO, Murtha is traitorous slime. I hope the people who re-elected him are proud of themselves.
Some quick googling shows that the Apellate Judges;Henderson, Rogers,and Edwards were appointed to the DC Appeals Court by three different Presidents. Henderson by Bush 1, Rogers by Clinton, and Henderson by Carter.
Doesn’t look real good, Smooth. The old guy appointed by Carter is most surely a flaming lib.
Oh, my.....Now that’s a ping!
Good.
Material is left unaired because of mistakes, miscues, misstatements, etc., as well as because of too much film for the time available.
In any case, Wuterich’s attorney never should have allowed him in front of a mike or camera. Jmho.
It appears that way.
I've been reading a few of his bio's. He seems to show alot of interest in labor matters, discrimination, affirmative action, equal opportunity, and the rigidity of the law. Sounds like he may prefer to be making law as opposed to ruling on established law.
Are you on location?
UPDATE.........
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/11/congressional-immunity-defamation-suit-to-draw-lines.html
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.