# Whoops! Ted Stevens "Not Guilty"
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [April 1, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628 "2009-04-01T20:14:15Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/1 "2009-04-01T20:14:15Z")
Or so it would seem, anyway, from a strict legal standpoint:
> [@Washington Post](#):
>
> The Justice Department this morning asked a federal judge to toss out the conviction of former senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) on corruption charges. The move comes as the judge was preparing to conduct hearings to probe allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by the team that tried one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress last year. The request, made in a court filing, caps the controversial prosecution of Stevens, who requested an early trial to clear his name but was convicted just days before he lost a reelection bid.
Wow.
Should the government re-try him? They seem to be saying they won’t. I think this is a mistake.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/2 "2009-04-01T20:17:36Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/3 "2009-04-01T20:41:05Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cornelius_Tuggerson)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/4 "2009-04-01T20:55:58Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/5 "2009-04-01T21:00:44Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#):
>
> 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.
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?
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/6 "2009-04-01T21:01:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Should the government re-try him? They seem to be saying they won’t. I think this is a mistake.
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.
---
### Author:  [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/7 "2009-04-01T21:14:08Z")
> [@LilShieste](#):
>
> Sounds like a good reason to re-try him, then.
why?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/8 "2009-04-01T21:30:08Z")
> [@LilShieste](#):
>
> 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?
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.
---
### Author:  [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/9 "2009-04-01T21:52:34Z")
Maybe we’ll get lucky and they’ll catch him toe-tapping in a Men’s Room sting.
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/10 "2009-04-01T23:06:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> 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.
Why is it a mistake? What do you feel would be the upside of a new trial?
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/11 "2009-04-01T23:19:46Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#):
>
> I disagree. Stevens was likely innocent of these charges.
What? Cite?
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#):
>
> 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.
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.
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#):
>
> The travesty is that the guy lost the election based on the misconduct of prosecutors and has no recourse.
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.
---
### Author:  [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/12 "2009-04-01T23:42:21Z")
> [@Squink](#):
>
> 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.
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.
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> 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.
Any particular reason for this speculation?
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/13 "2009-04-01T23:42:39Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> Why is it a mistake? What do you feel would be the upside of a new trial?
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.
---
### Author:  [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/14 "2009-04-01T23:42:52Z")
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!
---
### Author:  [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/15 "2009-04-01T23:52:23Z")
> [@LilShieste](#):
>
> why would they just completely drop the conviction?
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”.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/16 "2009-04-02T00:06:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> 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.
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.
> [@YamatoTwinkie](#):
>
> 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”.
Firing the prosecutors for misconduct, bringing them up on ethics charges and criminal charges (if appropriate) would set a better example.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2009, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/17 "2009-04-02T00:07:43Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#):
>
> 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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/18 "2009-04-02T00:17:31Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#):
>
> 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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2009, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/19 "2009-04-02T00:20:03Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> 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?
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/20 "2009-04-02T00:29:32Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#):
>
> So, do you think he shouldn’t have been prosecuted in the first place?
In the first place was fine. In the second place just seems like a pointless exercise.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628.md?page=2)