Or so it would seem, anyway, from a strict legal standpoint:
Wow.
Should the government re-try him? They seem to be saying they won’t. I think this is a mistake.
The charges all relate to his selling of his political power. He doesn’t have that anymore.
Couldn’t you say there’s no need for a trial if the sentence has already been imposed? Sometimes justice is served a bit roughly, but it’s still justice.
I disagree. Stevens was likely innocent of these charges.
The (latest bit of) evidence concealed by the prosecutors was extremely significant, i.e. that the work done on Steven’s house may have actually been worth less than he actually paid for it.
The travesty is that the guy lost the election based on the misconduct of prosecutors and has no recourse.
He was a multi-tier internet supporter, he got what he had coming :happydance:
The fact that he got it because of misconduct and not the rule of law does make me worry about our justice system, but then again things a whole lot more serious and deserving of attention worry me about our justice system, so no big deal there.
Sounds like a good reason to re-try him, then.
Bricker, (a legal question) why would they just completely drop the conviction? Would it be similar to a mistrial?
Bush Justice was a disaster. Better we put our efforts into ensuring good justice in the future than endlessly messing with the errors of the past.
Steven’s has already paid the ultimate political price. If he wants more justice than that, let him sue the prosecuting attorneys.
why?
Yes – there’s no attachment of jeopardy; his conviction is overturned because the prosecutors’ actions violated his right to a fair trial. But the government could choose to retry the case.
It looks to me like they’re agreeing not to retry the case to avoid airing their own dirty laundry – that is, the extent of the prosecution’s misdeeds during the trial.
Maybe we’ll get lucky and they’ll catch him toe-tapping in a Men’s Room sting.
Why is it a mistake? What do you feel would be the upside of a new trial?
What? Cite?
That is interesting, but I wouldn’t call it ‘extremely significant’. It’s not as if that’s the only charge against him, or the most serious one.
The prosecutorial misconduct wouldn’t have amounted to anything if he hadn’t insisted on having the trial moved up so people wouldn’t judge him on being in court. If he hadn’t done that, he would have won easily.
The lead prosecutor in the case, Brenda Morris, was a career prosecutor who was with the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division well before Bush took office. Although she was promoted twice under Bush, I haven’t seen any reason to believe it was Bush’s fault that she violated her oaths, misled the judge and jury, and committed prosecutorial misconduct.
As to retrying him, what’s the point? He’s old, powerless, and sad. He’s also guilty as hell, but he also didn’t get a fair trial. Although I would like to see him retried simply for the justice of it, there really is no point. He shouldn’t go to prison, he’s already lost his job, and a conviction on his record would mean little to nothing to anyone.
Any particular reason for this speculation?
If he were convicted, he’d go to prison and be punished for the crime. If he wasn’t convicted, his name would be cleared.
The behavior of those lawyers was… well, bizarre. It’s like they were trying to throw the case.
… no, not conspiracy theory, I mean… shoot, it was just obvious stuff. Don’t hide evidence!
Even if he is most likely guilty, you can make the argument that dropping the conviction sets a good example to show that prosecutorial misconduct will not be tolerated. There isn’t going to be any “do-overs”.
That’s what it looks like to me. Government corruption is a very serious crime that needs full airing. So is government incompetence. It seemed to me there was ample probable cause to try Stevens. This gets him off with a look of being persecuted.
Firing the prosecutors for misconduct, bringing them up on ethics charges and criminal charges (if appropriate) would set a better example.
I’m no fan of Steven’s politics, or the crimes he is charged with and now presumed innocent of. But I would not send an 86 year old man to prison, no purpose would be served. I’d fine him.
Doesn’t seem worth it to me, for either party.
His name will never be cleared and it’s not worth it to send him to prison on my dime.
So, do you think he shouldn’t have been prosecuted in the first place? What other crimes should you be allowed to commit and not be prosecuted for?
In the first place was fine. In the second place just seems like a pointless exercise.