What criminal law did she break? Note: I am not excusing what she did, I just don’t know what law you are referring to.
What the hell are you blathering about? Bricker asked how punishing her (the lawyer) would help the defendant. This was in direct response (he quoted it for crissakes) to magellan01 saying that punishing her but not allowing her conduct to affect the trial was acceptable. It’s a pretty damn obtuse reading that sees anything there that indicates that Bricker is saying she should get off scott free.
As far as I can tell, the judge basically has three choices. She can allow the trial to continue without allowing the tampered witnesses to testify, she can take the death penalty off the table, thereby ending the proceeding and sentencing him to life in prison (this will almost certainly be appealed by the government), or she can declare a mistrial.
And I wonder if you might be right, and you might be missing something here. Moussaoui has already been found guilty (and the confession was evidence in that trial). When somebody’s accused of something that can be punished by the death penalty, there have to be two trials. The first trial is to determine guilt or innocence. If he’s found guilty, then there’s a second trial (the “penalty phase”) During the penalty phase, the jury has to take into account all the mitigating factors (the factors that make his crime less severe or him less responsible) and the aggravating factors (that make his crime more severe or him more responsible), and then decide if he should be put to death or not.
I don’t know the law all that well.
But I have a strong expectation that if I disobayed a specific order from a federal judge, and tampered with multiple witnesses in a capital offense trial, I would spend some time in jail. If any of the lawyers in the audience feel this is somehow not realistic, I would like to hear the reasons that they think so.
Yes, the matter of the defendants rights, and the conduct of the trial, and the now predictably endless appeals seem to me to be a seperate matter, which could well be dealt with while said prosecutor sits in her jail cell.
Disbarred? Yeah, that too. But please, send this arrogant witch to jail, if in legal fact she is as guilty as she seems.
Tris
Without refering to the law in this particular case, many courts and elected bodies have a power to find people before them in ‘contempt of the court’ or body.
A finding of contempt generally allows a court to consider placing the person in custody.
Breach of a direct order of the court sounds like a good basis to consider a contempt finding.
I hate to defend her actions in any way, and I fully agree, from what I’ve seen, she fucked up big. Which is no surprise with some of the outright incompetence I’ve seen from the DOJ and the AG in all facets of cases, especially their terrorism prosecutions.
But I want to wait until after the judge’s hearing on Tuesday to find out what exactly happened, how severe a problem it is, and if the prosecutors had anything to do with it before calling for jailtime.
Thanks. I was aware of the info in your second paragraph, but this is helpful. I’d say that the DP should still be considered, particulalry since the other two options make it so easy to keep it on the table. The first option you listed makes the most sense to me. If the witnesses are not heard, the defendant will not suffer the consequences of the misdeed. If the case is then harder to make for the prosecution, so be it. A mistrial, and a retrial, seems unnecessary given the other option.
If the witnessess are not heard, the defendant may be deprived of testimony which benefits his case.
I was under the impression that these are witnesses that the prosecution is calling, as to bolster their case. If so, the defendant benefits from their not being heard. If, for whatever reason, the witness(es) would benefit the defendant, let them testify, airing the fact that the prosecution attempted to “steer” shold not automatically turn into a windfall for the defendant. From my impression of this particular case, it seems that justice can be served all the way around with a moderate helping of common sense. As I’ve said, the offending attorney should be dealt with in her own right, as far as the law and the mood of the judge will allow. If that means a slap on the wrist or ten years in the clink, so be it. I don’t know enough about the law or the nuance of her transgression to have a solid opinion on that aspect.
Let’s review, please. Here is a reproduction of my post #11, including the comment I was responding to:
If you’ll read it, you will see that magellan01 was suggesting that the defendant not benefit from the lawyer’s error. And in reply, I was pointing out that the defendant had been injured by the lawyer’s conduct, and what was being contemplated was a way to make him whole. Punishing the lawyer does not help the defendant. Nowhere in this post do I say, or even imply, that the lawyer should not be punished… just that a separate cure needs to be fashioned to repair the damage she did.
Zakalwe, I should note, had no trouble figuring this out.
Wherein friend Frank displays a genius for understatement.
I’m wondering, just wondering. A setup? Maybe the Feds wanted an out. They wanted him executed for crowing rights, yesiree, we got one! But if they thought they couldn’t win that one, mightn’t they opt for a weasel option, some way so that the liberal activist judge thwarts the righteous wrath of Justice Dept.? Shirley, not even the most dull-witted of lawyers wouldn’t have known that those actions were right out!.
I smell a rat. Of course, I usually do.
Generally, when stuff like this happens, the more likely cause is incompetence than conspiracy. Like Hamlet said, this is probably the result of a pissing contest between the DOJ and the TSA.
That’s what happens when you live in the sewers. 
Apparently, the judge decided that the government can continue to pursue the death penalty in the case. Story
It is interesting that the judge delayed her interview of the idiot lawyer until the lawyer can get her own lawyer to answer the possible contempt case. Also, it appears that Martin, the idiot, is no longer employed by the TSA.
I drew some solace from the statements of the prosecutors. "“We really are left speechless, frankly,” prosecutor David J. Novak told the judge, conceding that Martin’s actions were “wholly improper” and could seriously hamper the government’s case.
“We’re really not in a position to defend her conduct,” Novak said."
Purely speculative but I wonder how much the attitude at the top has to do with this. After all the President and his Attorney General appointees claim extraordinary lattitude for the executive department in following the law when national security and especially terrorism is “at risk.” Based on those repeated claims, maybe she thought that this case justified ignoring the orders of the court.
I don’t necessarily think it’s a Bush mentality thing, but simply a cover your bureaucratic ass thing. While I would be more than happy to blame Bush, I think the TSA has been repeatedly under fire and has developed a “circle the wagons” mentality (including some other discovery problems in a civil lawsuit) that only worsens their incredible incompetence. I don’t see it as a “screw you” to the court, but more as a “shit, having our asses covered is more important”.
that would be deep–certainly not outside the possible scenaria (I confess I had not considered it prior to Luc’s post).
There is, of course, a darker underbelly here, viz, (here I specifically defer to Bricker’s trial experience for verification) prosecutors (granted, the offender here was not on the actual prosecution team) are frequently less than scrupulous in avoiding collusion among their witnessesy; God knows, they will present a story that only the most willfully self-deluded attorney could pretend to believe, if it fits into their theory of the case, and they think their witness will be able to survive cross-ex. without a catastrophe. This is so often a successful tactic that we might well posit a certain false sense of security pervading a prosecution team, here biting them in the ass.
It’s hard to imagine that the actual trial counsel, whose rep will rise or fall on the result achieved when the jury returns, would take a dive as Luc sets forth–unless they saw a flat jury rejection coming. As I understand the Gov’t Case, and I have not spent any time whatever on the news accouts, so this is just what I get from the radio on in the background) they were going to have an uphill fight largely because the FBI specifically opted NOT to get a warrant for further investigation into M. after he was picked up.
That sort of makes the foreseeable nature of harm from his concealing the details of any conspiracy (what about the fifth amendment–who says he is obliged to say anything?) shaky–albeit I don’t know if that is a component of the jury instruction in a case like this.
Bricker, help! Is that an element of the offense, or does foreseeablity (really a tort concept) play no role in the culpability equation once he confesses to conspiracy (I guess that’s what he confessed to , but I really don’t even know that particular…)
AFAI understand the situation, the witnesses concerned were to testify whether if Moussaoui had given forewarning to the authorities, 9/11 could have been prevented. The witnesses were to testify about what measures would have been taken, had they been alerted to the threat earlier.
Which is a rather important point when it comes to sentencing. If Moussaoui could have prevented 9/11 but didn’t by choice, it is a different situation to the one where even if Moussaoui had alerted the authorities, events would have unfolded anyway.
It is therefore vial that all the FAA witnesses were on the same page- but vital that they get there independently, not by putting their heads together and coming up with a story, which is why the judge has disallowed their testimony.
Ms. Martin tampered with witnesses in direct defiance of the judge’s order. Contempt of court seems an appropriate charge.
Justice must be seen to be done, in this case more than ever. The whole world is watching, and the actions of the court and the prosecution must be above reproach. Ms. Martin gives ammunition not just to the defence, but to anyone else watching who may already feel that the USA is not above bending the rules to get what it wants.
Gee - after the lies about WMD, the scandals that are Gitmo and Abu Graib, etc etc etc - you think so?
I’d hazard a guess that a large segment of the world no longer believe a word uttered by the US of UK govts.
Certainly my default assumption is that any claim made by these govts over Iraq, Iran or Syria is a lie.
Bending the rules? They do that in their sleep.