Posted on 03/13/2006 10:30:42 AM PST by Wolfstar
If it was a DOJ lawyer that had done that, dismissal and barring double retrial might be appropriate. Since it was an agency attorney, that would probably not be justified.
(The attorney should be introduced to the concept of contempt of court, and the top lawyer at the agency should probably be dragged in and chewed out as to the need for competent, well trained attorneys in the agency.)
It would probably be appropriate to bar all agency lawyers from the trial.
Thanks for info on the judge. That's why I hope a FReeper who happens to be an attorney can help us out here. Were the judge's initial restrictions unreasonable, or did the TSA attorney screw the pooch?
Understood. The article indicates she may dismiss the case, presumably meaning the death penalty phase of the case.
I agree. One wonders, however, if the lawyer did this deliberately to sabotage the death penalty case.
It stinks that this lawyer made a boneheaded move. I hope the judge issues sanctions against Carla Martin. If the prosecution had a problem with the judge's pre-trial order, the time to fight it was *before* the trial starts.
MJ
The laywer who screwed up is from TSA, not Justice.
Absolutely. It's hard for me to imagine the lawyer did this accidentally.
The judge makes the decision to have witnesses sequestered (usually based on a request from either the prosecutor or the defense). The judge (referred to as "the court") makes the rules, but this rule is not uncommon and has been the case in most trials.
Let him go, then see to it that he joins the ranks of the "desaparecidos."
I didn't say it didn't matter that they broke the rules, I said that this rule violation hardly seems to compromise the integrity of the trial.
As to coaching, ethical or not, there isn't an atty alive who puts a witness on the stand cold. The ATTY himself may not tell the witness directly, use this word or that word... but they certainly will find a surrogate to do it for them if they feel the need.
If we're lucky, he'll be shot trying to escape.
...maybe the lawyer is a moonbat and did it intentionally, after all it is NYC.
OK stop picking your toes, you got mail. Sorry but you are one of those that can not make it there.
Excellent question. Unfortunately, like you, I can only go by what's in the media report(s).
I could not agree with you more, especially about Saddam.
Thank you. I was hoping to obtain the insights of a least one attorney on this thread.
Still, I am concerned if the article is correct and she has already disparaged the government to the jury.
I'm not an attorney, but this worried me, too.
I wonder if the attorney who sent this to the witnesses was not involved in the trial, and screwed up because they didn't realize the order existed.
I had not thought of this possibility. If this is the case, why would she involve herself in any way? This is a rhetorical question, obviously, but her actions seem so odd no matter how I look at the matter.
DMZ, before you go off on people, it might be helpful if you take a moment to absorb the facts in the article. The lawyer who screwed up is not from Justice, but from TSA.
It's not Clinton's fault, but neither is it Bush's fault. In fact, the only person at fault here is the attorney in question.
If I recall correctly, he is not a citizen. However, he is being tried in our civilian courts and is therefore being accorded the same rights as other defendants. (Unfortunately.)
The TSA attorney screwed the pooch. As I posted in an earlier thread about this matter, not only were the judge's restrictions reasonable, the Rule on Witnesses is mandatory if one of the parties asks for it: See Federal Rule of Evidence 615 which reads
Rule 615. Exclusion of Witnesses
At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order of its own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party's cause, or (4) a person authorized by statute to be present.
There's just no excuse for what happened here, and we might literally all have to pay the cost of one government attorney's stupidity and/or arrogance for the rest of the defendant's natural life.
According to the article, the lawyer who did it is from the TSA. It's unclear if the TSA lawyer was on the prosecution team. From the article:
Brinkema said a lawyer for the Transportation Security Administration sent e-mail to seven Federal Aviation Administration officials outlining the prosecution's opening statements and providing commentary on government witnesses from the first day of testimony.
Thanks. Every insight by an attorney posted on this thread is helpful -- to me, at least.
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.