Replies

No story or link yet...

I posted the wrong link. Can you delete it. Thanks.

Justice is done!

Can we get rid of the government lawyer that open this can of worms in the first place?

Confirmed by Fox News about ten minutes ago.

I wonder if the Supreme Court will agree to hear the appeal that's sure to come.

I wouldn't be surprised if this 9th Century knuckledragger outlives me.

Surprising, I would have bet the farm the death penalty was going to be thrown out.

We are back on track!

Sounds like he decided that he still wanted to be a judge when this trial was over.

That TSA Lawyer screwed up royally ... that was a major league stupid thing to do .. she should have known better

For any 9-11 families that are reading this forum:

The government knows about a witness that saw Moussaoui with Atta but they would rather lose the death penalty case than bring this witness forward. Here is the link to the article when it was posted on Free Republic.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/722374/posts

I have met this hotel owner and he is very credible. The FBI tried to tell the Oklahoma County Grand Jury that he had changed his story. He has never changed his story. The FBI has gone out of their way to try and discredit him. They will not bring him up in the Moussaoui trial because if they give him credibility in the Moussaoui trial, they give him credibility in the Oklahoma City bombing case.

The 9-11 families long ago should not have listened to their government "handlers" on the connection between 9-11 and the Oklahoma City bombing. I am sure that they were told things like witnesses "changed their story" and other lies to keep them from pursuing the truth. It is probably too late now.

They need to read the updated paperback addition of Jayna Davis' book, "The Third Terrorist". Also, you can find information on her website:

http://jaynadavis.com/

Part of me thinks this is to bad. If he got life and was placed in general population (although, he'd most likely be put in protective custody), he'd be ended years sooner than if he were to receive a government death warrant.

Is the final punishment going to be decided by the Judge.

Is the jury recommendation, simply that, a recommendation?

This judge is acting as tho the man didn't plead GUILTY.

This case should be fairly easy for the jury to figure out. I don't understand why the prosecution thinks it has to be underhanded to get this guy convicted.

U.S. District Court Judge.

Nominated by President Bill Clinton.
Entered duty 10/23/93.

This judge must not do many criminal cases if this is her first real world view of prosecutorial misconduct.

Prosecutors playing games like this are par for the course.

Newsflash: lawyers DO speak to witnesses before they testify. I dont know exactly what went down here, but this judge is apparently all over it like a fly on doggy doo.
Most times it's a very grey area, unless there is an obvious suborning of perjury...

http://www.waltersteele.com/fall2001.htm
Ethics in the Woodshed

About nine years ago I co-authored a short article suggesting that there may be ethical limits to the process popularly known as "woodshedding" witnesses, Lawyers and the Leopard's Spots: The Ethics of Preparing and Presenting Testimony, Forum, State Bar of Texas Criminal Justice Section (Dec. 1992). One noted Texas- based publication refused to publish the article, because, they said: "We would be ridden out of town on a rail." Just as they predicted, I received some horrific feed back after that article was published. Words like "hallucinating heretic", "arrogant academic", and "professional deviant" were cast my way, all because I was "so naive" as to suggest that there might be ethical limits on the practice of woodshedding.

Then and now I am surprised that the notion of ethical limits to witness coaching evokes such a hostile response from some lawyers. I take some comfort in the supposition that lawyers who believe they have an intrinsically unqualified right to coach witness are the same ones who react with clamoring professional outrage whenever they perceive that the opposing lawyer is "coaching the witness"during depositions or trials. Adding to my comfort, I discovered recently that the heretics to the east, (i.e. British Barristers) have a viewpoint about the matter akin to mine. The Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Whales (July 31, 2000) Rule 705 (a) provides :

"A barrister must not rehearse, practice or coach a witness in relation to his evidence or the way in which he should give it"

Amplification of the rule can be found in Miscellaneous Guidance 9 Dealings With Witnesses (v)

"Rule 705....does not prevent Counsel giving general advice to a witness...e.g. speak up, speak slowly...do not guess or speculate.....By contrast, mock cross examinations or rehearsals of particular lines of questioning ...are not permitted....."

Recently other writers (heretics ?) have dared to venture into the untouchable ground of witnesses coaching ethics, see e.g. Wydick, The Ethics of Witnesses Coaching, 17 Cardozo L. Rev. 1 (1995); Zacharias and Martin, Coaching Witnesses 87 Kentucky L. J. 1001 (1999) Salimi, Don't Walk the Line: Ethical Considerations in Preparing Witnesses for Depo and Trial, 18 Rev.of Lit. 135 (winter 1999).

A good place to begin this discussion is to assume that all readers agree that subornation of perjury violates legal and ethical norms. We reach easy agreement about that because we all recognize that the role of a witness is to present facts. Obviously perjury is a brazenly purposeful effort to present lies; not facts. I doubt that any lawyer would argue that they have a right or an obligation to suborn perjury as a part of the process of preparing a witness to testify.

Now that we have that agreement, lets examine the manner by which a witness presents facts. There are two facets to it: (1) the words spoken by the witness (2) the credibility of the witness. Fact finders are instructed to examine the credibleness of a witness as well as the words spoken by the witness. To evaluate the words, the fact finder focuses on the reasonableness of what the witness relates. To evaluate credibility, the fact finder focuses on the manner in which the witness presents; that is, the persona of the witness.

External factors sometimes inhibit a particular witness's ability to speak in a way that effectively presents the truth. Being a witness is foreign and perhaps frightening. Not all witnesses are well spoken. Surely, it aids the achievement of justice when lawyers discuss with witnesses those matters that will assist the witness to communicate. Likewise it adds greatly to the efficiency and accuracy of the process when lawyers explain to witnesses what facts are significant and why. There is considerable leeway in these efforts. Typically accepted techniques are set forth in Restatement Third, The Law Governing Lawyers Section 116, Comment b:

"In preparing a witness to testify...[a lawyer ] may include the following:...effective courtroom demeanor,....discussing the applicability of the law to the events in issue..discussing probable lines of hostile cross-examination ....rehearsal of testimony. A lawyer may suggest choice of words that might be employed to make the witness's meaning clear....."

These and similar techniques facilitate getting "witness words" to the fact finder. But techniques that corrupt the processes are not legitimate.

At times the line between assisting the process and corrupting the process is not easy to find. Nevertheless, lawyers are in the business of dealing with obscurity. That one must think to locate the difference between what is and what is not legitimate does not excuse not thinking.
Full article:
http://www.waltersteele.com/fall2001.htm

Newsflash: lawyers DO speak to witnesses before they testify. I dont know exactly what went down here, but this judge is apparently all over it like a fly on doggy doo.
Most times it's a very grey area, unless there is an obvious suborning of perjury...

http://www.waltersteele.com/fall2001.htm
Ethics in the Woodshed

About nine years ago I co-authored a short article suggesting that there may be ethical limits to the process popularly known as "woodshedding" witnesses, Lawyers and the Leopard's Spots: The Ethics of Preparing and Presenting Testimony, Forum, State Bar of Texas Criminal Justice Section (Dec. 1992). One noted Texas- based publication refused to publish the article, because, they said: "We would be ridden out of town on a rail." Just as they predicted, I received some horrific feed back after that article was published. Words like "hallucinating heretic", "arrogant academic", and "professional deviant" were cast my way, all because I was "so naive" as to suggest that there might be ethical limits on the practice of woodshedding.

Then and now I am surprised that the notion of ethical limits to witness coaching evokes such a hostile response from some lawyers. I take some comfort in the supposition that lawyers who believe they have an intrinsically unqualified right to coach witness are the same ones who react with clamoring professional outrage whenever they perceive that the opposing lawyer is "coaching the witness"during depositions or trials. Adding to my comfort, I discovered recently that the heretics to the east, (i.e. British Barristers) have a viewpoint about the matter akin to mine. The Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Whales (July 31, 2000) Rule 705 (a) provides :

"A barrister must not rehearse, practice or coach a witness in relation to his evidence or the way in which he should give it"

Amplification of the rule can be found in Miscellaneous Guidance 9 Dealings With Witnesses (v)

"Rule 705....does not prevent Counsel giving general advice to a witness...e.g. speak up, speak slowly...do not guess or speculate.....By contrast, mock cross examinations or rehearsals of particular lines of questioning ...are not permitted....."

Recently other writers (heretics ?) have dared to venture into the untouchable ground of witnesses coaching ethics, see e.g. Wydick, The Ethics of Witnesses Coaching, 17 Cardozo L. Rev. 1 (1995); Zacharias and Martin, Coaching Witnesses 87 Kentucky L. J. 1001 (1999) Salimi, Don't Walk the Line: Ethical Considerations in Preparing Witnesses for Depo and Trial, 18 Rev.of Lit. 135 (winter 1999).

A good place to begin this discussion is to assume that all readers agree that subornation of perjury violates legal and ethical norms. We reach easy agreement about that because we all recognize that the role of a witness is to present facts. Obviously perjury is a brazenly purposeful effort to present lies; not facts. I doubt that any lawyer would argue that they have a right or an obligation to suborn perjury as a part of the process of preparing a witness to testify.

Now that we have that agreement, lets examine the manner by which a witness presents facts. There are two facets to it: (1) the words spoken by the witness (2) the credibility of the witness. Fact finders are instructed to examine the credibleness of a witness as well as the words spoken by the witness. To evaluate the words, the fact finder focuses on the reasonableness of what the witness relates. To evaluate credibility, the fact finder focuses on the manner in which the witness presents; that is, the persona of the witness.

External factors sometimes inhibit a particular witness's ability to speak in a way that effectively presents the truth. Being a witness is foreign and perhaps frightening. Not all witnesses are well spoken. Surely, it aids the achievement of justice when lawyers discuss with witnesses those matters that will assist the witness to communicate. Likewise it adds greatly to the efficiency and accuracy of the process when lawyers explain to witnesses what facts are significant and why. There is considerable leeway in these efforts. Typically accepted techniques are set forth in Restatement Third, The Law Governing Lawyers Section 116, Comment b:

"In preparing a witness to testify...[a lawyer ] may include the following:...effective courtroom demeanor,....discussing the applicability of the law to the events in issue..discussing probable lines of hostile cross-examination ....rehearsal of testimony. A lawyer may suggest choice of words that might be employed to make the witness's meaning clear....."

These and similar techniques facilitate getting "witness words" to the fact finder. But techniques that corrupt the processes are not legitimate.

At times the line between assisting the process and corrupting the process is not easy to find. Nevertheless, lawyers are in the business of dealing with obscurity. That one must think to locate the difference between what is and what is not legitimate does not excuse not thinking.
Full article:
http://www.waltersteele.com/fall2001.htm

Just release this poor abused individual.

Then lock him with indestructable handcuffs to Senator Russell Feingold. They will make a great pair of hate America bozos.

The Reuters headline for this story is "Judge Deals Blow in Moussaoui Trial." How many dealer judges do we have in this country? I mean, what happened to the War on Drugs anyway?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060315/ts_nm/security_moussaoui_dc

Judge allows government to continue to seek death penalty against Zacarias Moussaoui

Title is misleading (not your fault), key point is throwing out evidence and stacking deck for the terrorist who should have long ago been executed

Another judge in favor of terrorists and terrorism just could not help herself ...