So? Being the most interesting in the judgement of various newspapers doesn’t actually mean anything.
Whoa there. The prosecution’s behavior was certainly unethical, but it wasn’t the only reason he was convicted.
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:
Cite?
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.
Maybe it would help if you would clarify what other crimes you are referring to.
How do you know that?
This is a distinction without a difference.
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?
They can, but is it worth the expense of a new trial they may possibly lose, since much of the evidence is now tainted?
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.
However, that was not the only count. There were plenty of (ahem) loans.
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.
He is still not guilty.:dubious:
Because it seems to me pretty clear that he was factually guilty of corruption, which a new - fair - trial would demonstrate.
The confession of error on the eve of an evidentiary hearing on the extent of the prosecutorial misconduct, which confession moots the hearing.
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…
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.”
Ah yes. The famous mantra of justice in America. “Not guilty until proven guilty.” :dubious:
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
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.
That is what the word “innocent” means.
The Bush justice department robbed em:
Even Republicans think so, so it must be true.
Where, oh where is the justice for Alaska? 
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.
You claim to be a lawyer, right? :dubious:
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.