Witness tampering in Moussaoui case. What penalty for gov't lawyer?.

Great Debates
41

Yes yes, much hand-wringing on the part of the government attorneys who are so dismayed this woman’s play was caught out in the left-wing media blah blah. Cry me a river. “Spechless”?? -cough-

In the jurisdiction where this took place, what is the threshold that must be crossed in order for a member of the bar to be disbarred? Did she cross it? Might she be disbarred? Cause, that is one of two things that should happen to her. Some jail time for contempt is the other.

Oh, and those of you who were snootily asking what laws she broke? Apparently for those of us who aren’t attorney’s, we don’t have contempt for orders issued directly by a judge sitting on a case. Some of us, believe it or not, respect the word and instructions that might be issued from a bench and might not be contemptuous of those orders.

See, there’s that word. Contempt of Court. Need it really be spelled out to you? She committed more than one count ( there are more than one email, there are more than one recipient- multiple counts ) of Contempt of Court.

Simple. Disbar her. What is the absolute maximum fiscal and incarceration penalty in the jurisdiction where she committed the crime? And yeah, contempt is a crime, so don’t go playing the " What crime? By gum, she didn’t commit a crime, she just…uh…well…sheh just…got…uh…caught. "

:rolleyes: Puh-leeeze.

And, since her illegal activities have wounded the government’s case , it might therefore be argued that she has directly assisted in his defense- which is aiding a known terrorist. Hey, be grateful nobody’s thought of that yet. That charge might just stick. She tried to blow a part of the government’s case- and in fact according to the link, the Judge has now prohibited testimony about aviation security measures from the trail. In a direct way, what this woman did has damaged the government’s ability to full prosecute this man. She has in fact directly aided his defense.

Interesting.

42

Actually, without speaking to the specific case; ‘contempt’ where it exists is not a crime per se. Rather, it arises from the inherent power of the court (or parliament).

It is unusual in that a contempt finding can be made without the usual process of a criminal trial. Unusual, because a custodial sentence may follow from the finding of contempt. Although that would not be a common occurence.

43

I know it’s may just be splitting hairs, but there is a distinction between “criminal contempt”, which is viewed as punishment, requires due process, and, since it happened outside the presence of the court, may be indirect. I think that’s what occured in this case.

Since we seem to be discussing criminal contempt, there does need to be due process, including no double jeopardy, right to notice, right to counsel, right to witness and present a defense, right to avoid self-incrimination, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I think these obstacles are one reason courts are reluctant to involve themselves in criminal contempt cases, but given the nature of the case, the egregiousness of the violation, and the judge’s comments, this may very well be the exception.

The sentencing hearing, if it goes as normal ones, will be bifurcated, with the jury first determining whether Moussaoui is even eligible for the death penalty, and then the second is whether he deserves it. The first part requires that the prosecutors prove Moussaoui intended 9/11 to occur and that he somehow “caused” it. That’s the weakest part of the prosecution, from what I’ve read, and where the lack of testimony about what could have been done to stop it had the authorities known, is going to hurt the most. The second part, the prosecution will have to prove three aggravating factors: that Moussaoui caused a grave risk of death, that the deaths he helped bring about came in “an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner” involving torture or serious physical abuse, and that he took part in a significant plan of terrorism resulting in the deaths.

44

Maybe a hijack, but my understanding, based on previous threads was that in the USA one couldn’t be prosecuted or sentenced for not reporting/denouncing a crime.

So, am I mistaken? And if I’m not, then why would the fact that he didn’t report the conspiracy be relevant to the case?

45

Do you have any reason, besides rabid prejudice, to believe the prosecutors were involved in Martin’s actions? Seeing as how they were the ones who brought the problem to the judge’s attention, have resoundedly decried her actions, and they are the ones who’s case will suffer for her actions, I tend to believe them when they say they had absolutely no role in the contempt. Your Righteous Indignation Whore Mileage May Vary.

46

This woman appears to be quite the loose cannon.

From CNN:

I would imagine that at this point the prosecutors would like nothing better than to strangle her.

47

Prosecutor: “We don’t know whether it is worth us proceeding at all…”

Huh.

48

You said it!

I always presume incompetence over conspiracy, and alas, the TSA has demonstrated plenty of the former. Judge Brinkema has ample inherent authority to deal with the situation. If I were the judge, I’d let Martin get her own lawyer, then swear her in and ask her, at length, about what she did. Was she aware of the court’s order about prepping witnesses? If not, should she have been?

Knowing what I do about the case, I would be strongly inclined to hold her in contempt, jail her for at least a few weeks, heavily fine her, and refer her to the bar disciplinary authority wherever she’s admitted, with a strong recommendation that she be disbarred.

49

I’d just point out that before the feds can appeal the ruling excluding the aviation evidence, they must file a sworn certificate that states that they are not doing it to delay the trial and that the suppressed evidence is material and substantive proof of the defendant’s guilt. The prosecutor’s statement was, probably, an attempt to lay the groundwork for filing the certificate. Basically, in order to appeal the judge’s ruling during the trial, has to say that.

50

I’m not sure which way this cuts, but once when my father, in the course of his “boutique” practice, was admonished by a judge to produce in court his client, an italian-american businessman on extended nautical vacation off the florida keys (this was before Castro outsted Batista from Cuba…), he replied that “it is not my job to bring my client in”.

Judge: “You are in contempt of court. $100.00 (this is a long time ago…)”

Dad: “Your honor, $100. does not begin to measure my contempt for this court…”

He immediately was made aware of what the little room off the courtroom with the grill over the door is for–without any further process, due or otherwise…

There is, of course, criminal contempt which cannot be “purged” by compliance with some court order previously flouted; that form of contempt requires a trial.

51

I’m wrestling with that myself. I guess the analysis goes like this:

Once he confesses to conspiracy, and we reach to penalty phase, for puposes of assessing culpability I guess the instructions to the jury (re:his silence during the three weeks between his arrest and 9/11 would go something like this:

Do you find that the D., by his inaction, enhanced the likelihood that his co-conspirators actions would result in the death of the 9/11 victims, thereby enhancing his culpability" It sort of goes to proximate cause, in the sense that we could imagine a defense based on:

“Hey, I thought they were only going to hijack the planes and demand _____________ in return for the release of the now hostage passengers”.

I think the peculiar nature of the laws governing conspiracy (you are tagged with all of the actions of your co-conspirators, whether you personally engaged.approved of , or even knew about them) has something to do with the thrust of the government’s claim.

52
  • refer her to the bar disciplinary authority wherever she’s admitted, with a strong recommendation that she be disbarred.*

I think we may confidently predict that the letter is already in the mail…

Federal judges are just so pissy…

53

You’re just guessing she wasn’t trying to help terrorism. You can NOT infer intent – it’s unknowable…or at least, only alleged by the person involved.

Fact: she helped reduce the chance of a terrorist paying the ultimate price.

Fact: any idiot would have known that tampering would a) easily be detected and b) compromise the case.

Speculation: she did or did not mean to help terror.

Oh sure, she alleges one thing or the other, but so what? Protestations of innocence have little moved the gov’t so far in other cases, why should she be the lone exception?

If we’re throwing the book, throw it.

If not, the we got some ‘splainin’ to do.

Sailboat

54

any idiot would have known that tampering would a) easily be detected

alas, if only that were true…In fact it happens virtually every day, in every criminal trial, and it continues because in the RARE instances of discovery the offending prosecutor gets not so much as a 30 day suspension from practice.

55

sigh. I’d ask for a cite, but I know you’re just talking out your ass yet again.

56

There are a couple of Court of Appeals cases that gainsay the dangers of letting these foxes guard the hen house. In United States v. Kojayan, 8 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir. 1993), prosecutors concealed evidence and, when they were caught, they lied about it. The appellate court was so troubled that Judge Alex Kozinski (a Reagan appointee) expressed his concern over the lack of supervision and control exercised over the prosecutor by his superiors. He wondered how “. . . a serious claim of prosecutorial misconduct remains unresolved - even unaddressed - until oral argument in the Court of Appeals.” Id. at 1320. In the famed El Rukn street gang prosecution in Chicago, the prosecution plied informants with alcohol, drugs, and sex in federal offices in exchange for their “cooperation.” They knowingly used perjured testimony. After two years, the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility did recommend that one prosecutor be terminated, but until very recently, he still remained on the payroll.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:CulqtMz_1wAJ:www.nacdl.org/PUBLIC/ABUSE/CR000001.htm+prosecutors+disciplined+for+perjured+testimony&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8&client=opera

Besides the above, which stands out for the fact that ultimately (IIRC, someone actually drew bar discipline) there are the examples cited here:
Several former and current prosecutors acknowledged — “off the record” — that perjury and falsification are serious problems in law enforcement that, though not condoned, are ignored. The form this tolerance takes, however, is subtle, which makes accountability in this area especially difficult
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:l28JJ9_GxrgJ:www.constitution.org/lrev/dershowitz_test_981201.htm+testilying&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=opera

As an index to the lax response when such misconduct comes to light, we may at the least infer that little deterrance seems to be in place, insofar as the practice continues unabated.

It is hard to quantify the number of offending trial counsel who, once caught, continue to practice law unimpeded, because there are no compendia of disciplinary actions not
imposed.

I invite you, however, to plumb trial transcripts in cases resulting in acquittals, and having culled testimony adverse to the defendants which was ultimately disbelieved by the jury, follow the carreer of the prosecutors in those cases to see how they fared professionally.

Of course, you may rebuke me with the admonition that simply because the jury cut so and so loose, does not prove that they disbelieved some particular bit of testimony, nor, furthermore, that the disbelief, if verified, proves conscious collusion and/or misconduct by the prosecution, but I await your research and the resulting law review article with anticipation.

57

well, bless my (google) buttons, here’s the very item:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:j4CUIeKKG70J:www.publicintegrity.org/pm/report.aspx%3Faid%3D39+prosecutors+disciplined+for+perjured+testimony&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=opera

58

alaric, here’s what you said: “In fact it happens virtually every day, in every criminal trial,”, here’s what you showed: it happens.

Of course there are cases where evidence is not disclosed, where prosecutors act unethically and government attorneys violate court orders. These are extremely bad practices, and I condemn each and every one of them. But that’s not what you said.

This is a re-occuring, dare I say constant, problem with you and your posts. You lie, mislead, and overstate your points, without actual evidence, and when called on it, you cite to Allan Dershowitz and ignore your misstatements. I find your arguments inane, overstated, and rambling, which, I guess in your world, is fine. But when you mislead and make broad statements without evidence, it’s dishonest. Please stop.

59

Or I could rebuke you with the fact that your post is completely unintelligible. It is absolutely not understandable, and your “evidence” makes no sense whatsoever when presented within the context of your “logic”.

I eagerly anticipate your reframing of your post in such a way that the intelligent layman may understand your point.

I would also like to point out that the mere fact that a jury aquits a defendant does not demonstrate malfeasance on the part of a prosecutor anymore than a conviction demonstrates malfeasance on the part of the defence.

You’re not a real lawyer, are you?

60

You want that pony too?