U.S. drops corruption case against ex-Sen. Stevens
Wed Apr 1, 2009 5:22pm EDT
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department asked a federal judge on Wednesday to throw out the corruption conviction of former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens because prosecutors withheld helpful evidence from his lawyers.
Attorney General Eric Holder said he decided to abandon the case against Stevens, a Republican who narrowly lost his bid for re-election last year amid heavy publicity over the case, after a review showed prosecutors did not turn over to the defense information that might have helped Stevens' case.
In October, a federal jury found Stevens guilty of seven counts of lying on a Senate disclosure form to conceal $250,000 in gifts and home renovations from an oil executive and other friends.
"I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial," Holder said as department prosecutors filed a motion in federal court to set aside the jury verdict and throw out the charges.
The decision to drop the high-profile case was a major embarrassment for the Justice Department. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan immediately set an April 7 hearing on the department's request.
Stevens, 85, -- who had been the longest-serving Republican in the U.S. Senate -- said he is grateful the department acknowledged that he did not receive a fair trial.
"I always knew that there would be a day when the cloud that surrounded me would be removed. That day has finally come. It is unfortunate that an election was affected by proceedings now recognized as unfair," he said in a statement.
Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct had delayed the sentencing of Stevens, who was narrowly defeated in the November election by Mark Begich, a Democrat. The case was cited as one reason for the loss.
Stevens had faced up to five years in prison on each count, but under federal guidelines was likely to get much less prison time or just probation if he had been sentenced.
Stevens' defense attorneys had sought to overturn the conviction, citing a whistleblower complaint by an FBI agent who said another agent and prosecutors improperly concealed evidence helpful to Stevens.
U.S. prosecutors are required to fully disclose evidence to defendants.
Earlier this year, Sullivan, the presiding judge in the case, ordered three Justice Department attorneys held in contempt for failing to turn over documents to Stevens' legal team.
The department said in court documents filed on Wednesday it failed to turn over to the defense for use at trial notes from an interview in April last year with Bill Allen, the former head of an Alaska oil-services firm and the prosecution's star witness.
It said Allen in the interview estimated the value of the renovation work at Stevens' home to be far less than what he testified at trial and said he did not remember talking to a mutual friend about a bill for Stevens for the work. Continued...http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5302O820090401
A fine example of your dems at work. Proves what lengths they would go to to win house majority.
Hot off the press! (last week's press) :rolleyes:
So, he's corrupt and that's "the dems" fault? :spooked:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on April 08, 2009, 09:42:32 AM
So, he's corrupt and that's "the dems" fault? :spooked:
Read the story. Those were false, trumped up, bogus charges to keep him from being re elected. Read Forrest, read..... :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on April 08, 2009, 09:47:28 AM
Read the story. Those were false, trumped up, bogus charges to keep him from being re elected. Read Forrest, read..... :rolleyes:
Perhaps
you should be the one who should learn to read. The charges haven't been dismissed; only the verdict, based on prosecutorial misconduct. The case will likely be re-tried and will likely produce the same outcome.
Judge Tosses Stevens Verdict, Blasts Prosecutors
Special Prosecutor to Probe Alleged Misconduct in Ex-Alaska Senator's Corruption Case
By PIERRE THOMAS, JASON RYAN
and THERESA COOK
April 7, 2009
In a fatal blow to the corruption case against former Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens, a federal judge granted a Justice Department request to throw out the guilty verdict against Stevens and ordered a criminal investigation into alleged misconduct by the prosecutors tasked with trying the case.
Outraged federal judge throws out guilty verdict against former Alaskan senator.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, who rebuked the prosecutors repeatedly during the trial last fall, said today that "For 25 years I've told defendants they'd receive a fair trial... I've never seen such mishandling or misconduct."
Last week, the Justice Department took the extremely rare action to issue a mea culpa and announce its intention to drop the matter after prosecutors had already won a conviction in the high-profile case.
A federal jury in Washington convicted the Alaska Republican, 85, on corruption charges last October, just days before Stevens lost a re-election bid. The prosecution charged that Stevens lied on his Senate financial disclosure forms, in effect concealing $250,000 worth of gifts and home renovations from a wealthy oilman, Bill Allen, and his oil services company, Veco.
Stevens said in court today that he had begun to question his faith in the judicial system, but that the most recent actions taken by Attorney General Eric Holder, Sullivan and new prosecutors who reviewed the case restored that confidence.
"I'm deeply grateful for all you've done," he told the court.
He did not make a formal statement to reporters as he departed the courthouse, but asked how he felt, Stevens said, "Well, if I was Sen. Byrd, I'd say Hallelujah" as he entered a waiting SUV.
West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd is the longest-serving Democrat in the U.S. Senate; Stevens, who had been a senator since 1968, was the longest-serving Republican.
Though Stevens appeared to have had a weight lifted from his shoulders, the judge remained troubled by the allegations of misconduct.
At the hearing, Sullivan clicked through a litany of alleged prosecutorial missteps, including the improper release of a witness who then returned to Alaska, blacking out exculpatory information from an FBI report, withholding a key grand jury transcript and submitting false business records into evidence. Prosecutors have since admitted that some of the moves were "mistakes."
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Politics/story?id=7277926&page=1
I am split on this.........I have no doubt in my mind that Stevens is corrupt....but I also believe that there was some dirty pool being played here by the democrats to keep him from being re-elected....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 08, 2009, 10:11:05 AM
I am split on this.........I have no doubt in my mind that Stevens is corrupt....but I also believe that there was some dirty pool being played here by the democrats to keep him from being re-elected....
Agreed and those officials guilty of the misconduct that resulted in the verdict being overturned should lose their jobs. It still remains, however, that Stevens took what amounts to bribes and then lied about it. It isn't a partisan issue although me seems to think he should get a pass simply because he's a Republican.
Exactly :yes:
I believe that most of us would agree that public officials SHOULD be held to higher standards than the general populace. We would probably also agree that when found guilty of violating our laws and the public trust, these fatcat bozos usually receive a much lighter penalty for their actions than would any of us were we similarly indicted. I wonder if the prosecution, with egg all over its face, will even bother to reinstate charges against Teddy boy? :mad:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 08, 2009, 10:11:05 AM
.but I also believe that there was some dirty pool being played here by the democrats to keep him from being re-elected....
Excuse me, but I believe that it was the Bush DOJ that prosecuted Stevens.
Quote from: Bo D on April 08, 2009, 11:07:01 AM
Excuse me, but I believe that it was the Bush DOJ that prosecuted Stevens.
Details, details...
Quote from: Bo D on April 08, 2009, 11:07:01 AM
Excuse me, but I believe that it was the Bush DOJ that prosecuted Stevens.
First of all, it was....On June 16, 1994, Judge Sullivan was appointed by
President William Clinton to serve as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.
Second of all, a good judge is not left or right, but simply
interprets the law....
and
third...it was the Justice Department
attorneys held in contempt for failing to turn over documents to Stevens' legal team.
Do we really have to explain to you the difference between the prosecutors who brought the charges and the judge who heard the case?
Quote from: Exterminator on April 08, 2009, 11:26:16 AM
Do we really have to explain to you the difference between the prosecutors who brought the charges and the judge who heard the case?
Nope, I jumped the gun there....and misread Bo's post....... :no:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 08, 2009, 11:51:54 AM
Nope, I jumped the gun there....and misread Bo's post....... :no:
Oh, good...I so wasn't looking forward to that conversation and the ensuing discussion over what a meanie I am. :biggrin:
By your own words then the Senator who got caught with cash in his freezer should lose his seat. Wouldn't that be correct? IIR he wasn't even brought up on charges. I mean, after all, it was illegally obtained money.
Quote from: me on April 08, 2009, 01:11:35 PM
By your own words then the Senator who got caught with cash in his freezer should lose his seat. Wouldn't that be correct? IIR he wasn't even brought up on charges. I mean, after all, it was illegally obtained money.
There seems to be some disagreement about the source of that money and for what it was intended but if it is found that it was illegally obtained and he is convicted then yes, he should absolutely lose his seat (sort of a moot point in that the publicity surrounding this was enough to cause him to lose his reelection bid already) and he should go to jail. And no, you do not recall correctly; he was indicted by a federal grand jury on 16 corruption charges in June of 2007.
I really don't care what the party affiliation is, if a politician is caught selling his/her vote, he/she should be strung up for it.
Rep. William Jefferson was indeed indicted. The trial had been scheduled for sometime in January of this year as I recall.
Now I see that it is scheduled for May 26.
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/former_rep_william_jeffersons.html (http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/former_rep_william_jeffersons.html)
For some reason I was thinking they had dropped it. :shrug:
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/thjump.gif)
For you Hawk
http://www.waveevents.com/MyFilez/wavs/variety/irritate.wav (http://www.waveevents.com/MyFilez/wavs/variety/irritate.wav)
Quote from: Bo D on April 08, 2009, 02:42:07 PM
http://www.waveevents.com/MyFilez/wavs/variety/irritate.wav (http://www.waveevents.com/MyFilez/wavs/variety/irritate.wav)
:rotfl: :rotfl:
Quote from: me on April 08, 2009, 02:14:59 PM
For some reason I was thinking they had dropped it. :shrug:
That's the difference between you and I; if I'm not sure about something, I look it up before I comment.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 09, 2009, 08:24:02 AM
That's the difference between you and Ime; if I'm not sure about something, I look it up before I comment.
There I fixed it for you.... :biggrin:
Did you really help your case there? ;D
Quote from: Exterminator on April 09, 2009, 08:24:02 AM
That's the difference between you and I; if I'm not sure about something, I look it up before I comment.
And keep looking it up until you find someone that agrees with you or you can spin to seem to agree with you. I can find data or a poll to back up any subject I want. It doesn't make it correct just what I think.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on April 09, 2009, 09:18:54 AM
Did you really help your case there? ;D
If he can correct others English I can correct his. :razz:
Quote from: me on April 09, 2009, 08:49:38 AM
There I fixed it for you.... :biggrin:
You are correct and I obviously wasn't yet fully awake when I typed that; thank you!
It's not that...check your correction ;D If you're going to correct someone, then you may want to be sure that you don't have typos. :razz:
Quote from: mcgonser on April 09, 2009, 10:02:48 AM
And keep looking it up until you find someone that agrees with you or you can spin to seem to agree with you. I can find data or a poll to back up any subject I want. It doesn't make it correct just what I think.
A poll to back up whether or not someone was indicted by a grand jury? What a douche. :rolleyes:
oh wait, maybe it's me. I'm on my cell and it looks like "Ime". If you used the strike out, then I can't see it. Sorry. :biggrin:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on April 09, 2009, 10:27:55 AM
It's not that...check your correction ;D If you're going to correct someone, then you may want to be sure that you don't have typos. :razz:
Ah yes, I will admit to being a bit dyslexic at times but then I don't go around correcting everyone's grammar and spelling like Ex does either. :razz:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on April 09, 2009, 10:30:32 AM
oh wait, maybe it's me. I'm on my cell and it looks like "Ime". If you used the strike out, then I can't see it. Sorry. :biggrin:
I did and it's even hard to see on the computer for some reason.
Quote from: me on April 09, 2009, 10:31:54 AM
Ah yes, I will admit to being a bit dyslexic at times but then I don't go around correcting everyone's grammar and spelling like Ex does either. :razz:
My grandmother was an English teacher; I come by it honestly.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 09, 2009, 10:34:34 AM
My grandmother was an English teacher; I come by it honestly.
I'd say you had your share of being corrected then. My 8th grade science teacher was a stickler for correct pronunciation and spelling. If you spelled something wrong or pronounced it wrong you wrote it correctly 500 to 1000 times.
Quote from: me on April 09, 2009, 10:37:14 AM
I'd say you had your share of being corrected then. My 8th grade science teacher was a stickler for correct pronunciation and spelling. If you spelled something wrong or pronounced it wrong you wrote it correctly 500 to 1000 times.
That's called - a good education!
Quote from: Exterminator on April 09, 2009, 10:28:53 AM
A poll to back up whether or not someone was indicted by a grand jury? What a douche. :rolleyes:
JUNEAU, Alaska -- Alaska lawmakers want the U.S. government to apologize to former Sen. Ted Stevens, whose corruption conviction was dismissed this week by a federal judge.
Stevens was convicted by a federal jury of lying on Senate disclosure forms for not revealing gifts. The judge who threw out the conviction on Tuesday also ordered a criminal investigation into prosecutors who worked on the case.
The Alaska House passed a resolution Wednesday calling for the apology to Stevens, who was once the Senate's longest-serving Republican. He lost his seat in November to Democrat Mark Begich just days after the jury conviction.
The resolution will be sent to President Obama. It calls for the government to give Stevens permission to sue the Justice Department for redress.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 09, 2009, 10:28:53 AM
A poll to back up whether or not someone was indicted by a grand jury? What a douche. :rolleyes:
What a dick head Ex: If you go back and read all the news articles it show that all charges have been dropped and there will be no more charges. They got what they wanted which was a Democrat elected to congress.
Quote from: mcgonser on April 09, 2009, 11:43:24 AM
They got what they wanted which was a Democrat elected to congress.
Must we repeat that it was the Bush DOJ that indicted Stevens?
Quote from: mcgonser on April 09, 2009, 11:43:24 AM
What a dick head Ex: If you go back and read all the news articles it show that all charges have been dropped and there will be no more charges. They got what they wanted which was a Democrat elected to congress.
So I guess you're ok with a United States Senator accepting a quarter of a million dollars worth of home renovations (the evidence withheld only said that the renovations were worth less, not that they didn't occur) from an oil company who has business before Federal government as long as he's a Republican, huh? Real nice 'christian' morals there, babe; you have zero integrity in my book.
Unlike you, I couldn't give a crap which party any of these idiots belongs to; if they're taking bribes (which Stevens clearly was) to vote in favor of something other than the interests of their constituents, they should go to jail. Your defense of this man only shows that you are more interested in your bullshit partisan politics than you are in the country itself...typical neocon.
Quote from: Bo D on April 09, 2009, 11:45:48 AM
Must we repeat that it was the Bush DOJ that indicted Stevens?
What do you expect; she's too old to remember what she had for breakfast.
Quote from: Bo D on April 09, 2009, 11:45:48 AM
Must we repeat that it was the Bush DOJ that indicted Stevens?
THAT does not mean they were NOT of democrat influence....Bush did NOT replace several DOJ prosecutors....many were left over from the Clinton Admin...
The bottom line for me is.....Stevens has a history of corruption....even Palin was NOT a fan of his....and though I rarely agree with EX, I couldn't give a crap which party any of these idiots belongs to..they should go to jail...had Stevens been running an honest tenure....then this would NOT even be a story.
but, I also do not discount the fact that Politics ALSO played a role in keeping Stevens out of the Senate...and those DOJ's prosecutors ARE being investigated....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 09, 2009, 12:48:14 PM
THAT does not mean they were NOT of democrat influence....Bush did NOT replace several DOJ prosecutors....many were left over from the Clinton Admin...
investigated....
I willing to bet you that this case wasn't prosecuted without the express permission of Bush's Attorney General.
Quote from: Bo D on April 09, 2009, 12:54:26 PM
I willing to bet you that this case wasn't prosecuted without the express permission of Bush's Attorney General.
you may be right...but that does not change things....what right would Bush's Attorney General have to NOT allow corruption charges on ANYONE.....corruption charges are corruption charges...He is doing his job.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 09, 2009, 12:59:19 PM
you may be right...but that does not change things....what right would Bush's Attorney General have to NOT allow corruption charges on ANYONE.....corruption charges are corruption charges...He is doing his job.
Wrong. It does change one itty bitty thing. It takes away the argument that Stevens's prosecution was a ploy by the Democrats to steal his seat.
C'mon, y'all! That's just ridiculous!
Quote from: Bo D on April 09, 2009, 01:02:58 PM
Wrong. It does change one itty bitty thing. It takes away the argument that Steven's prosecution was a ploy by the Democrats to steal his seat.
C'mon, y'all! That's just ridiculous!
I'm not saying it happened, but it is also not ridiculous...remember it's Politics....and both sides are corrupt and want power.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 09, 2009, 01:05:45 PM
I'm not saying it happened, but it is also not ridiculous...remember it's Politics....and both sides are corrupt and want power.
And I'm not saying politics don't sometimes (more than we would like) play a part in Justice.
But to say that Steven's prosecution was a ploy by the Democrats to steal his seat is ignorant.
Slow down Henry! Go back and re-read my last few posts.