Posted on 10/21/2019 11:01:17 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
Federal prosecutors cannot play a clip from “The Godfather, Part II” in court during the trial of political consultant Roger Stone, a judge ruled Monday.
U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is overseeing the case against the consultant, agreed with his attorneys that the clip could unfairly prejudice jurors.
“The government will not be permitted to introduce the clip itself in its case in chief because the prejudicial effect of the videotape, which includes a number of extraneous matters, outweighs its probative value,” Jackson, an Obama appointee, ruled Monday.
However, she said prosecutors are free to use a transcript of the scene.
The indictment against Stone charges that he pressured an associate to “do a Frank Pentangeli” in his testimony. Pentangeli, played in the 1974 film by Michael V. Gazzo, is a lieutenant in the Corleone mafia family who recants incriminating Senate testimony after the family arranges for his brother to sit in the audience for the hearing.
Stone, a longtime informal adviser to President Trump, is charged with seven felonies, including witness tampering and lying to Congress. He has pleaded not guilty and is free on bond.
Stone's trial is set to begin Nov. 5 in Washington, D.C.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
First, Coppola’s work should be seen on BluRay, or at lewast DVD … certainly not on video tape. Second, I haven’t seen Godfather Part II, but it is showing on the big screen through Fathom Events nationwide. The jury pool (and those following the trial on television/Internet), should not be exposed to spoilers.
Case must be pretty weak if they are relying on these tactics..
Prejudicial effect? Schiff for brains got away with it. But that’s a side benefit of running a kangaroo court.
Part II is very good. Part III was redikerus.
Unbelievable!
Lead prosecutor to team — “Our case is very weak. Anybody got any ideas?”
Assistant Prosecutor — “I know, boss. Let’s show them a movie of how it could have gone down!”
Just like Schiff reading his own script of the Trump transcript.
GF2 is at least as good and in some ways better than the Original.
Why not begin the court proceeding, instead of having the bailiff call all to rise, by showing a WB cartoon?
One reason for that is that it featured deniro back when he used to be a human being.
Part 3 was as horrible as Parts 1 and 2 were outstanding. Of course part 3 was re-written at the last second as Duvall refused to participate because he was terribly low-balled on salary.
Part 3 could have been the best. It focused on Duvall’s character Tom Haden who was murdered in the proposed movie. Three parts, three brothers murdered, each in their own episode.
In the end, there was only Michael living, the one who wanted nothing to do with the family business.
Never mind the spoilers, you’re missing the point.
The movie is FICTION— as are most movies.
Prosecutors want to introduce scenes from a freakin’ movie to the jury-— as if it’s some kind of EVIDENCE against Roger Stone?!?
It’s nothing of the kind. It’s an attempt to smear, to assassinate his— and by extension, Trump’s— character
The judge should have tossed the lawyers in jail and probably could have tossed the whole case. A stunt like that is abuse of process.
Oh, ok.
That post didnt sound like your usual erudite self, but your silly side wasn’t obvious either.
Please forgive.
Part 3 was as horrible as Parts 1 and 2 were outstanding. Of course part 3 was re-written at the last second as Duvall refused to participate because he was terribly low-balled on salary.
Part 3 could have been the best. It focused on Duvall’s character Tom Haden who was murdered in the proposed movie. Three parts, three brothers murdered, each in their own episode.
In the end, there was only Michael living, the one who wanted nothing to do with the family business.
If Stone made the comment, then there may be little choice but to provide context so that the jury knows the meaning of the comment.
Alone, the comment to "do a Frank Pentangeli" would be pretty ambiguous. Does it mean to wait on line until able to speak to the boss? Does it mean to ask the boss for permission to kill the opposition? Does it mean to become a government witness? Does it mean to commit suicide in order to avoid detriment to one's family? Does it mean to drink water out of a hose? Perhaps the government claims that it means to act ignorant of one's own prior testimony and to claim that the testimony was meaningless?
The problem I see for the government is that the comment could mean any of those things and perhaps many others. The government will be relying on the context of the comment to lend it meaning.
If the context itself does not establish the meaning beyond a reasonable doubt, how could the Pentangeli comment cause it to exceed reasonable doubt, since it depends entirely on context. The opposite case also holds. That is, if the context establishes the government claim beyond a reasonable doubt, then of what value would the Pentangeli comment be?
None of this changes the proposition that it is extremely unwise to make references to a gangster movie while talking to a potential witness.
Part 2 is the only DeNiro role worth watching, IMHO.
Yes, exactly the same. Jurisprudence and the rule of law is collapsing around us. These people are insane.
One reason for that is that it featured deniro back when he used to be a human being.
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.