# Whoops! Ted Stevens "Not Guilty" **URL:** \ **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:** 3
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2009, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/41 "2009-04-02T14:23:19Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Well it’s certainly the one which dominated all the coverage of the trial. So? Being the most interesting in the judgement of various newspapers doesn’t actually mean anything. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > He lost because the prosecution was consistently corrupt. Whoa there. The prosecution’s behavior was certainly unethical, but it wasn’t the only reason he was convicted. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > What you’re saying seems logically analogous to a robber saying “my attempt to rob your house wouldn’t have been successful had you had better locks, so stop whining”. Not quite. In that case, the robber expects the homeowner to expend more time and effort thwarting him. All Stevens would have had to do is . . . nothing. And I repeat: > [@you](#): > > I disagree. Stevens was likely innocent of these charges. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/42 "2009-04-02T14:25:34Z")
This “exoneration” of Stevens (or so he’ll play it) is potentially very bad news for Sarah Palin. She may have been hoping for an easy primary win against incumbent Senator Murkowski in 2010. If Stevens decides to run for office again, I’m not so sure that there aren’t enough dumb Alaskans to send him back to Washington, where he can waste more taxpayer money (he could live many more years and “serve” like other Senate crepitants of recent years). A three-way Palin-Murkowski-Stevens primary battle in 2010 could be entertainingly ugly. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/43 "2009-04-02T14:25:45Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > So? Being the most interesting in the judgement of various newspapers doesn’t actually mean anything. Maybe it would help if you would clarify what other crimes you are referring to. > [@](#): > > Whoa there. The prosecution’s behavior was certainly unethical, but it wasn’t the only reason he was convicted. How do you know that? > [@](#): > > Not quite. In that case, the robber expects the homeowner to expend more time and effort thwarting him. All Stevens would have had to do is . . . nothing. This is a distinction without a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2009, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/44 "2009-04-02T14:29:44Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Stevens committed crimes…especially serious crimes, because he betrayed the public trust by commiting crimes that abused his power as a public servant. Well, strictly speaking, we don’t know that. The only way to determine if that’s the case, is to give him a fair trial. Which didn’t happen. So, at this point, he is still innocent, what ever you may think. Paying $130K for house renovations that cost $250K is a serious crime. Paying $130K for house rennovations that only cost $80K is getting screwed by a contractor, not a serious crime. See the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2009, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/45 "2009-04-02T15:05:58Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > 1. He’s 85. Bernie Madoff was 70, and they put him in prison. At what point during those extra 15 years are you allowed to commit crimes without fear of going to prison. > > 2. All being out of office means is that he’s not in a position to commit future crimes like the ones he was accused of. He still bears legal responsibility for whatever crimes he may have committed when he was in office. > > 3. Jeopardy doesn’t attach. The prosecutors can legally retry him. They can, but is it worth the expense of a new trial they may possibly lose, since much of the evidence is now tainted? > [@Sinaijon](#): > > Well, strictly speaking, we don’t know that. The only way to determine if that’s the case, is to give him a fair trial. Which didn’t happen. So, at this point, he is still innocent, what ever you may think. Legally, he is innocent. Whether or not he is actually innocent is a different question. But since there is not going to another trial, we’ll never know for sure. > [@](#): > > Paying $130K for house renovations that cost $250K is a serious crime. Paying $130K for house rennovations that only cost $80K is getting screwed by a contractor, not a serious crime. See the difference? However, that was not the only count. There were plenty of (ahem) loans. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/46 "2009-04-02T15:30:22Z")
And paying $130K for house renovations that were worth $195K but were offered by the prosecution as being worth $250K is something else yet again. Which of these was it? Asking for information, I really do not know. I made up the numbers above to follow Sinaijon’s post. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2009, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/47 "2009-04-02T15:43:49Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > So, at this point, he is still innocent, what ever you may think. He is still _not guilty_.:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/48 "2009-04-02T16:07:06Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Why is it a mistake? What do you feel would be the upside of a new trial? Because it seems to me pretty clear that he was factually guilty of corruption, which a new - fair - trial would demonstrate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2009, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/49 "2009-04-02T16:11:53Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Any particular reason for this speculation? The confession of error on the eve of an evidentiary hearing on the extent of the prosecutorial misconduct, which confession moots the hearing. ---
**Author:** ![Peanut\_Gallery](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/838e76/32.png) [@Peanut\_Gallery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut_Gallery)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/50 "2009-04-02T16:13:30Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > 1. He’s 85. Bernie Madoff was 70, and they put him in prison. At what point during those extra 15 years are you allowed to commit crimes without fear of going to prison. I very strongly agree with this. What’s with this idea that because he is old, he should be left alone? That’s shameful. I think there is very good reason to try and sentence old criminals just the same. Deterrent value. People worry about their later years more than the rest, and might value them higher in terms of the consequences of their corruption. Especially considering the average age of legislators! If he gets thrown in prison at 85, he is sure to live less years than outside (right?). That’s part of the sentence IMO. As it is, he will get to walk free, with the best medical care in the world (paid by his corruption), the whole time preaching about how pure he is. I’m just as irritated to know that the reason they probably won’t try again him is to cover up \*even more \*corruption in the original prosecution! /spit On the other hand, the idea of the Palin/Murkowski/Stevens race is almost worth letting it slide… ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/51 "2009-04-02T21:00:34Z")
Now some of Sen. Stevens old buddies, notably Sen Robert Bennett (R-Utah) and Sen Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), are taking the position that the dismissal of the indictment in proof that Old Ted was telling the truth all along and that this is a vindication of the former Alaska senator. To paraphrase Mason Ladd, Dean of the Iowa Law School for a fair hunk of the 20th Century: **No! No! No, Mr Jacobburger! God damn it, no!** The dismissal does not mean that Sen Stevens is innocent of the corruption charges any more than his acquittal means that OJ is innocent of murder. In fact it means less. What it means is that the prosecuting attorneys in Steven’s case deliberately and wilfully did thing that impaired Sen Stevens ability to fully and fairly defend himself by hiding evidence that MIGHT have been helpful to his defense. Unfortunately that happens in the best of prosecuting attorney’s offices. It happens because the prosecutors are so full of zeal, so convinced to the righteousness of their cause that they cut corners, play games with the evidence, finagle the procedures and generally try to fix the odds so that their case has the right outcome. That seems to be just what happened here. There were a number of things the Dept of Justice could have done about this situation. One was to keep quiet and bunker up. Another was to quietly reassign the prosecutors – if a long time assistant prosecutor abruptly takes a position as a social security administrative law judge there is a fair chance that he has been caught siccing the IRS on defense lawyers. Another move would be to confess error on the appeal and hope for the best. To its credit this DOJ took the dismissal route, sent a message to its staff and avoided the embarrassment of having all of this misconduct brought out by Sen Steven’s lawyers in a much more political setting. But a vindication of Sen Stevens? I’m not buying it. It looks like another case of “because the constable has blundered the criminal must go free.” ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/52 "2009-04-02T21:30:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > He is still _not guilty_.:dubious: Ah yes. The famous mantra of justice in America. “Not guilty until proven guilty.” :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/53 "2009-04-02T22:43:31Z")
He should be tried in the courtroom next door to where his former prosecutors are being tried for prosecutorial misconduct. Why? Because we don’t tolerate corruption and we don’t tolerate abusive prosecutors who railroad accused individuals. That’s the long and short of it. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/54 "2009-04-02T23:38:19Z")
[Palin, Ruedrich call for Begich resignation](http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/story/746047.html) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/55 "2009-04-03T00:24:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Palin, Ruedrich call for Begich resignation OK, that just makes no sense at all. Even granting that there was prosecutorial misconduct, Begich didn’t have anything to do with it. Would the people of Alaska have voted differently if they knew what we know now? Probably. But then, the people of the US would probably have voted differently in 2000 and 2004 if they knew what we know now, too. That’s not a reason to overturn an election. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/56 "2009-04-03T01:49:46Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > He is still _not guilty_.:dubious: That is what the word “innocent” means. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2009, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/57 "2009-04-03T14:09:52Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, that just makes no sense at all. The Bush justice department robbed em: > [@](#): > > “There’s a groundswell all over the state for a special election,” said Wev Shea, a former United States attorney for the Alaska district who is now in private practice in Anchorage. > > “Alaskans are appalled,” said Mr. Shea, a Republican. “They were robbed of 40 years of seniority in the U.S. Senate, and he was dragged through the mud by the power of the Department of Justice and its F.B.I.” > > Among those calling for a special election was Randy Ruedrich, the Republican Party chairman, who said in an e-mail message Thursday, “A special election will allow Alaskans to have a real, nonbiased, credible process where the most qualified person could win.” [NY Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/us/politics/03react.html?hpw) Even Republicans think so, so it _must_ be true. Where, oh where is the _justice_ for Alaska? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/58 "2009-04-03T15:44:43Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > That is what the word “innocent” means. WTF? Innocent = didn’t do it. Not guilty = not convicted of it. You can be one but not the other, or neither, or both. I thought that was pretty well understood. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/59 "2009-04-03T15:45:53Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Ah yes. The famous mantra of justice in America. “Not guilty until proven guilty.” :dubious: You claim to be a lawyer, right? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628/60 "2009-04-03T19:26:35Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > WTF? Innocent = didn’t do it. Not guilty = not convicted of it. You can be one but not the other, or neither, or both. I thought that was pretty well understood. Innocent is compounded from the Latin roots _in-_, meaning not, and _nocens_, wicked, guilty. It means “not guilty.” The central principle of American criminal jurisprudence is phrased as “_innocent_ until proven guilty” or _presumption of innocent_ . When a person is acquitted of a crime in the US, it means that the state has not proven its case and thus the presumption of innocence is maintained, and, in the eyes of the law, that person either did not commit the act in question, or that the act in question has been judged not criminal in nature. We use the phrase “not guilty” to express this. Innocent = not guilty. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whoops-ted-stevens-not-guilty/491628.md?page=4)