Yeesh. Considering how aggressive the government has been about pursuing allegations of wrongdoing on the defense side of terrorism trials, I’d say fairness requires them to be just as aggressive in going after prosecutorial misconduct.
Given Lynn Stewarts actions, and the fact that she hired him, I think that the governement is right to have seriously looked into Yousry. Having done so, it seems that even though twenty years enters into the equation as a possibility, that based on the information provided that he deserves zero punishment.
If Martin did, in fact, break the law, she deserves to be punished. But her misdeeds are not in the ballpark of helping terrorism. Let her be charged and fined/disbarred/prosecuted/jailed, whatever is appropriate. In the reality of this particular phase of the trial, it shouldn’t effect the outcome, though. The guy confessed to three accounts (of six) that qualify him for the endless nap.
but, with respect, that’s precisely the question that is the subject of this phase of the trial in whcih, apparently, the prosecution had a finger on the scale. When that happens, we’re supposed to bend over backwards, not bend the defendant over forwards, as it were…
Uh, how do you figure that perverting the course of justice so that the case against a dangerous terrorist is weakened and the sentence possibly reduced, as per the OP’s link, is anything but helping terrorism?
There’s a reason that people in the criminal justice system are supposed to follow the rules, and it isn’t in order to be nice to the criminals. It’s so that we don’t have to confront a choice between permitting dangerous abuses of power on the one hand, and weakening our ability to punish dangerous criminals on the other.
One is helping terrorism with the intent of helping it. The other helps it by accident of a dumb mistake. As I said, her misdeeds she be punished. But, in this case he confessed, so his conviction didn’t hang on what a witness might have said. Put the needle in his arm today and prosecute her tomorrow.
My only law credentials are being a years-long fan of Law & Order, but as a rule, I do not think that a misdeed on the part of the prosecution, or police, should automatically equate to a boon for the defendant. I think that is a big mistake in our system of late. Fortunately, I think this has been noticed and the pendulum is about to start righting itself.
I agree completely. And I’m not advocating that. I’m saying that the transgresssion should be punished, but not necessarily benefiting the defendant. This case is a good example. He is just as guilty as if this didn’t happen. He confessed. The lawyer should be punished in her own right. Fired, disbared, fined, jailed, whatever.
But the lawyer’s transgression unfairly hurt the defendant’s ability to defend himself in the penalty phase of his trial. How does punishing the lawyer address that problem?
The government should concede error and accept the removal of the death penalty from the table as an appropriate sanction.
If it is likely (as per the judge) that the confession would have been had without the testimony of the tainted witness(es), then get the needle ready. If, on the other hand, the tainted testimony is believed (by the judge) to have been pivotal or instrumental in the confession being offered, I would have to agree with you.
So if the question of whether he is guilty or not is moot (the confession), isn’t it true that any other evidence is presented to just sway or nudge things one way or the other? If so, and if the judge is able to conclude that the other evidence—or the guilty verdict itself, could have lead to a death sentence, then I think my point stands. Maybe I’m missing something (very possible), but if I was on a jury and he confessed and the only question is should he be put to death or not, I don’t care if the prosecution equates him to Hitler or Jesus. If you’re guilty of a crime of terrorism, successful or not, “Nurse, needle please.”
Legal question: how much discretion does the judge have in a case like this?
Really? You can’t think of anything worse than a terrorist being locked up for the rest of his life? Nothing? Nothing at all?
If you reread my posts I think you’ll see that I was contrasting her actions with those of Lynn Stewart, who facilitated terrorist communications. That alone I think qualifies as worse.
I will point out that the brain-dead attorney whose misconduct is being debated was an attorney for the Transportation Safety Administration, and not one of the federal prosecutors directly involved in the case. It was the US Attorney and the lead prosecutor who brought the misconduct to the judge’s attention, saying that her conduct was “reprehensible and we frankly cannot fathom why she engaged in such conduct.”
If I had to make an educated guess, there was a pissing contest between the prosecutors on the case, who are attempting to argue that something could have been done to prevent 9/11 if Moussaoui hadn’t helped, and the TSA, who would look bad if that theory flew. This kind of crap is not unheard of, but, given the limited facts I have, I certainly would support firing the idiot, and a nice contempt sentence (if possible).
Bricker wants to know why she should be punished at all???
See, some of us actually have a moral compass that includes respecting the words spoken by, oh, say people like Federal Judges. And we might just find it reprehensible for a member of the bar, any member, to directly and flagrantly violate the law, not to mention DIRECT INSTRUCTIONS FROM A JUDGE SITTING ON THE CASE.
So. Why won’t she be disbarred? Why shouldn’t she be disbarred? I mean, along with the contempt charges and jail time. Or, are attorneys somehow magically exempt from obeying the very laws they’re supposed to uphold, just because their stationary reads “T.S.A.” across the top ?
Removing the death penalty as an option does exactly nothing to sanction the woman who violated the direct instructions from the judge in the case. Nothing. At all.