Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
US Attorneys in re Wecht: Alleged Breach of Attorney Standards of Conduct
The United States Attorney overseeing the Wecht Litigiation has allegedly admitted they authorized/directed the FBI to contact the Wecht Trial jurors.
Subsequent disclosures reveal the Court did not permit release of these names. These names were sealed.
The US Attorney's office would have us believe, on chance alone, that they were able to narrow the list of potential jurors to the actual lists of jurors. This defies reason. The US Attorney's office said they only contacted through the FBI one juror.
It is impossible to randomly choose one name form a list of potential Wecht Jurors, and only meet at the home of one of the Wecht Jurors, only interview one jurory; but then explain why multiple jurors report being interviewed. The US Attorney's office is allegedly engaging in misrepresentations which should be investigated by DOJ OPR.
Putting aside the above, the issue also touches on impermissible contacts with Jury Members. 3.5 expressly prohibits post-trial contact by an attorney and a released juror. Also, the attorney ethics prohibit US Attorneys to direct others to engage in any conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by legal counsel.
Based on the US Attorney statements reported in the media, it appers there is a reasonable basis to review:
- Did the US Attorney working on direction of others order FBI agents to engage in communcations which the attorney ethics prohbit?
- Why should we believe that these "post trial interviews" are common, when the attorney ethics rules expressly prohbit this contact?
Someone in the US Attorneys office, DOJ, and White House are creating confusion. The "jury polls" which the court conduct to monitor jury deliberations are different than a post-trial interview.
Comments (37)
Kudos to you Testing for writing about something other than the horserace. I'm assuming you're a lawyer since your most recent posts have been in this field. This is important stuff.
Why didn't the USA poll the jurors after they read their verdict? Isn't that when it's allowed? I can't imagine how intimidated the jurors felt when the FBI showed up at their doors. It's fascistically creepy.
So thank again for keeping us informed on other important things.
May 3, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dee Loralei
The judge chose not to poll the jurors. This issue and other procedural violations have sparked a new round of motions and appeals in the Dr. Wecht proceedings relating to the judge violating the federal procedures and resulting in a double jeopardy issue if Dr. Wecht is tried a second time. Details on these appeals where reported in the May 9th Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
Jury Polling versus Jury Interviews
There is a difference between polling a jury and interviewing a juror. Polling a jury is when the jury is questioned on each count whether they voted guilty or not guilty. This usually takes place after the verdict is read. You see this often on legal dramas such as Law & Order.
A post trial juror interview is different. This action is when someone, whether from the defense, the prosecution, or the media, sits down and interviews the juror or jurors. A post trial interview is a voluntary action on the part of the jurors. They can deny such a request. Even if they do consent to such an interview, the jurors can deny choose not to provide a response to certain questions.
The issue raised in the local papers is that sending the FBI to request such an interview from the jurors leads many to view that the jurors would not realize that they could voluntarily opt out of such an interview. Additionally, since the jurors’ names were sealed per Judge Schwab's decision, it is clear that someone had to violate the judge's ruling in order to direct the FBI to the jurors’ homes.
Presently, the use of the FBI in this manner has sparked public outcry which has resulted in Chairman Conyers to continue the review of the Wecht case for political interference and motivation. Also, Dr. Wecht’s legal team has filed motions objecting to the apparent violation of the court order of the judge that are still under review by the district judge.
With that said, the opportunity for the judge to poll the jury has passed. Individuals are allowed to interview the jurors to attempt to better understand what occurred during the deliberations and the jurors’ views on the different aspects of the case. The issue in this situation is would the use of the FBI intimidate the jurors? and How did the FBI gain access to the jurors’ names since such information was sealed per the judge’s order
Judge Schwab’s Ruling on Jurors’ Names
From the news coverage, the judge in the Wecht case has had extremely odd rulings tha t many argue favored the prosecution. One such issue was that of the jurors’ names. Judge Schwab attempted to seat an anonymous jury in the case of Dr. Wecht. News organizations and Dr. Wecht’s legal team objected to such a decision and the appeals court ruled that the names of the jurors were to be released to the public. In response, Judge Schwab put forth a very odd mechanism for disclosing the jurors’ names.
From the media, it was reported that Judge Schwab planned to release the jurors’ names when he released all the individuals that were pooled together for jury selection. So in a group of about 100+ people, the judge would release the jurors’ names, yet not identify them. In response, the local Pittsburgh news media has filed appeals to force Judge Schwab to honor the decision of the appeals court that the jurors’ names are to be made public.
May 9, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you believe this writing-style isn't working, why are you substantially copying it, the formatting, and the methods of highlighting text?
You've reposted the same question as highlighted here, but you've provided no cases to support your assertion of what a "jury poll" is. You're repeating yourself.
It also appears you are not convinced "nobody" is reading this. You're contradicting yourself.
May 12, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did not post the comment you linked me to.
May 12, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the same meaningless claptrap:
You waited until after you received information, and are now changing your focus. You shifted around on "jury poll" and "jury interview", but now would have us believe that this is a trial-related issue.
This is the US Attorney release, which you appear to be re-transmitting. A "post verdict discussion is different than a questoin of jurors, before the trial is over, of how they voted:
when there is a hung jury, there is no "final vote" to poll. The definition of a hung jury is a jury that has not reached a conclusion.
Even if there was a conclusion, there's no consistent report of what that "final" vote was. One group says the majority was voting to acquit; the prosecutor says the opposite. They're making up things.
You said it was "common knowlege" what a jury poll was; but then you, in error, misrepresented what a jury poll was.
"Opportunity for the judge to poll the jury has passed" is meaningless drivel. What is "allowed" is one thing; you're still not clear what that is.
Here you contradict yourself:
A hung jury has no "final vote" to record. It's been deadlocked.
May 12, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I considered a hung jury a verdict as well. You are correct with your view that it is not.
A judge can and usually does poll the jury before releasing it within a hung jury/mistrial decision. Since Judge Schwab did not do carry out such a procedure in the first trial of Dr. Wecht, the case is currently under appeal for a "double jeopardy" violation.
May 12, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are important election issues. Until these issues are confronted now, neither of the three leading Presidential candidates can argue they understand what is wrong, or have reviewed anything to propose how they will change from what is wrong to what needs to change. As Senators, they need to show they committed to support fact finding; otherwise, as President, they'll do more of the same: Slowroll, and not confront the legal issues. We need to see action and leadership in the Senate now.
You asked an important question. The US Attorneys office has released some misleading information. A "jury poll" conducted during deliberations, before the trial is over, is different than a post-trial interview. The US Attorney's office has been deliberately confusing "jury poll" with "attorney interview". They are not the same. Let's consider your question in detail:
The US Attorney's office is confusing "jury poll" with "after trial interview". This misdirection appears deliberate. There are two different things. The Attorney rules, as you read at the link, prohibit attorneys from discussing legal issues with jurors after they are released when the court prohibits that communication.
Arguably, even the list of non-seated jurors is irrelevant: A case could be made that the attorneys knew, or should have known, the court. when it seated juror-names, did not intend for any contact after trial with seated or potential jurors (see 3.5 (c):
Attorneys are prohibited from directing others to do things which the attorneys are not permitted:
We know the court sealed the names, and the US Attorney's office admits they did not have the final list of juror names because they claim they whittled the list from the potential list of jurors. This defies reason. They cannot explain how they only conducted one interview, but only interviewed one juror. On chance alone, they should have contract some non-jurors, but there has been no report of FBI contacts with non-seated jurors. How the US Attorney's office had the list of sealed juror's names is the subject of speculation. This may be related to digital data forensics, and electronic eavesdropping the US government did on the court.
A jury poll is something completely different. A jury poll is not an interview. It is a question the court, not an attorney, asks of the jury during jury deliberations. This question has nothing to do with their conclusions. The jury poll is only a question a judge might ask to determine: How is the deliberation process going. The court is not interested in their conclusion, nor in their reasoning, only in their deliberation progress.
A jury poll is conducted when a jury is deadlocked. The court will ask a question like this: "What benefit will there be with more deliberations?" The purpose of the jury poll is to ask the jury whether more discussions will or will not change any views. The court is not asking the jurors to change their views, nor to conclude something different than what they believe. During a "jury poll," the court doesn't care what the juror's reasoning is, their conclusions, or why they are leaning one way or another. The jury poll/question is narrowly on the question of deliberation time: Whether the deadlocked jury, given more time, is likely to agree, as a group; or likely not to change their views and remain deadlocked.
Prohibited Attorney Post-Trial Interviews
The question at a "jury polls" has nothing to do with an after-trial interview. The purpose of the jury poll is for the court to decide whether they should give the jury more time to overcome their differences, and reach a unanimous verdict; or whether the jurors have exhausted their deliberations, and none of the jurors is likely to hear anything that will change their views.
Not all attorney post-trial interviews are a problem, but in the case of Wecht, the court did not permit the list of seated jurors to be released. It appears the US Attorneys knew that the court did not intent for anyone to contact these seated jurors after trial; but, despite knowing this prohibition, allegedly committed a subsequent violation of the attorney ethics by directing others -- FBI agents -- to do this prohibited interview with the jurors. The US Attorney's office appears to have provided direction to the FBI to engage in something different: Impermissible contacts with the jurors after a jury has been released, and contacted them despite the court sealing their names.
The US Attorneys office got caught. They have four (4) problems: [1] The jurors were not comfortable because they knew their names had been sealed, but they were contacted at home, and asked for their views on secret deliberations; [2] the attorney standards of conduct prohibit these contacts, even when an attorney directs others like FBI agents to do what the rules say attorneys may not; and [3] The US Attorney cannot convincingly explain how the US Attorney got the final list of seated-juror names, despite the court order sealing the names, defies reason. Something impermissible was done, the FBI agents were caught, the US Attorney admitted involvement, and the rules appear to have been breached; and [4] The pattern of conduct is allegedly by those implicated in war crimes.
Alleged Wecht Jury Tampering Implications: War Crimes implications in re Impartial War Crimes Prosecutions
This Wecht case is not a simple issue of an FBI home visit of a juror. It's potentially very damaging evidence of US government efforts to intimidate jurors who will have a say on how war crimes issues are adjudicated. Left unchecked, other nations would have reasonable questions about whether the US judicial system is or is not impartial to conduct a war crimes trial. Once other nations conclude the US cannot under Geneva conduct an impartial war crimes trial, or there is a risk the US jurors would be intimidated, other nations may move forward with prosecutions against US government officials, civilians, contractors, and legal counsel. Geneva permits these foreign trial verdicts to be enforced.
Digital Data Forensics
This says nothing of who in the White House or DOJ directed the US Attorneys to take the fall; or how the White House and DOJ got the sealed names. It appears the names were gleaned through illegal methods including unauthorized access to classified electronic data.
The problem the US Attorneys, DoJ Staff, and White House counsel have is that they have, by name, and as a group, been connected with a digital data forensics conference at the OMNI hotel in Philadelphia in 2007. They knew, or should have known, that the electronic secrecy requirements were real, something forensics must respect, but knew of methods to bypass these protocols.
Recall, the FBI direct, when asked about various operations, did not deny that they had been blocked from asserting any authority. Rather, they simply asserted they were following "protocols". This does not exclude the possibility that the protocol -- requiring the FBI to "stand down" on an issue o f national security -- agreed not to review war crimes evidence, attorney breaches of attorney standards of conduct, or other jury tampering in re Wecht.
War Crimes Implications
The real issue in re Wecht is how the US Attorneys have been implicated in White House-DoJ staff counsel misconduct, and this abuse of power involves the same people advocating for and implementing war crimes. This isn't narrowly about jury tampering or digital data forensics, but the abuse of power by the President, DoJ Staff, White House counsel, and the US Attorney on evidence related to digital data forensics, data mining, White House emails, and war crimes.
The question then blossoms into what role are the Members of Congress and outside auditors playing in not investigating these issues. Either they enforce the law, or they could be charged with malfeasance in re Geneva, US Constitution, and oath of office.
US Attorney Misdirection
The above war crimes issues are behind the White House and DOJ Staff concerns. Once the FBI is linked with alleged illegal domestic surveillance of the court, then we need to reconsider the ongoing home searches of attorneys and court officers: Is the US government visit homes of court officials to secure, destroy, and suppress war crimes evidence? It appears so. The last thing the White House and DOJ need is for a bungled operation in re Wecht to highlight a larger pattern of domestic surveillance abuses against the judicial and legislative branches.
Distraction from War Crimes, Pretending Alleged Illegal Jury Interviews We Acceptable
DoJ and the White House counsel have one objective: To make the prohibited, post-trial interview, which the court did not want, into something that was "permissible".
They attempted to pretend that post-trial interviews are the same as jury polls (they are not); they've attempted to pretend they got the names of seated jurors from the eligible pool of jurors (that defies reason); and they've sought to explain away the FBI conduct as something that is normal (it is not); and they've attempted to paint the FBI home visits as something that the US Attorney approved (she cannot approve something the attorney standards of conduct prohibit).
May 3, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not addressing the Geneva Convention and War Crime assertions, I will comment that the US Attorney violated the judge's order in this issue. The jurors' names were sealed and as such only the jurors would be able to initiate communication with the defense, prosecution, or media to initiate a post-trial interview. The actions in this instance by the US Attorney and the FBI need to be reviewed.
Not only does it show that that US Attorney and FBI violated a court order, it also raises concerns about how the FBI was able to gain access to sealed information without a court order. Did the FBI or US Attorney misuse their investigative powers to gain access to such information? If so, is this occurrence a one time issue or is it a cyclical ongoing happening by their part?
May 9, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've not provided any confidence that the issue is not above the US Attorney, beyond the DOJ OLC/AG level into the White House counsel's office. WH Counsel was on the email list of US Attorneys.
May 12, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you sir have provided no proof of such connection to date. Speculation is just speculation.
May 12, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is additional information suggesting the US Attorneys in re Wecht have allegedly engaged in conduct they know, or should know, does not meet the standards expected of US Attorneys. Once they have been discredited, and possibly impeached (discredited) as witnesses, their open statements can be used to make adverse inferences about their conduct, and, where appropriate, prosecute them under the laws of war.
Pattern of Dubious Excuses To Implement Presidential Plans Thwarting Needed Investigations
ideally, if a President refuses to enforce the law, the Congress -- through impeachment -- will confront that alleged illegal activity. However, this Congress refuses to investigate or impeach impeachable offenses by lesser officers despite ample evidence the President has no plans to investigate, much less prosecute alleged illegal DoJ Staff counsel, US Attorney, or other impermissible conduct.
We have no direct information that the President has or has not blocked the DOJ OPR from reviewing these issues. However, it is likely there have been dubious assertions made in writing as a pretext to (a) block, not cooperate with, or obstruct DOJ OPR from reviewing the alleged US Attorney misconduct in re Wecht; and (b) hide evidence of the alleged White House involvement with the FBI interviews of the Wecht Jurors.
These dubious explanations fall under the DoJ exceptions to reporting to the DOJ IG incidents. We've seen dubious reasons for classification of data or oversee FISA violations and war crimes; there are likely ongoing dubious reasons to still block DOJ OPR and DOJ IG from reviewing these issues.
DoJ, Judicial, Congressional Inaction: Subsequent Geneva Violations by Civilians, Judicial Officers, Legal Counsel
Nuremberg prosecuted the same legal issues: Inaction by legal counsel in refusing to fully enforce the laws of war. Allegedly, the DoJ OLC staff, Congress, and DoJ AG have not proceeded on war crimes issues through prosecutions, investigations, or impeachment. This raises the prospect of Nuremberg-like charges being filed against similarly-situated Americans: Civilians, policy makers, legal counsel, and judicial officers.
Inaction on Serious Issues: Poor Prospects of Action on "Minor" Issues
Without action on Geneva-level issues, there is a small chance they're proceeding on a "minor" issue like Jury tampering, US Attorney misconduct, or violations of the Court Order in re Wecht. It appears the Judicial Branch is still comatose and is not, as would be expected if we had a functioning judiciary, immediately demanding the US Attorney to make a case why it should not be held in contempt of court, something the President has no power to Pardon.
Nuremberg is the precedent for prosecuting civilians for war crimes. Nuremberg clearly established when civilians have a duty to either impeach or prosecute, but they refuse, those civilians cannot call themselves civilized. A history of inaction in re impeachment and prosecution over war crimes would prompt other nations to prosecute US civilians, contractors, and legal counsel outside the US judicial system for alleged breaches of Geneva. Not only is this far from over, there's no statute of limitations. Other nations can do the same data mining on US evidence which the NSA does on foreigners and Americans. Other nations are permitted, under Geneva, to engage in retaliatory actions to secure this war crimes evidence.
The common line of evidence -- touching White House emails, contractor involvement with data mining/media messaging, FISA violations, FBI interviews of jurors at home, and missing evidence in re Geneva violations -- is the digital data forensics.
May 3, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing ,
One of my hopes is - should ( WHEN ?) Sen Obama gets elected President -stalwart supporters such as Sen Durbin will be allowed to fully investigate through oversight hearings all the criminal activity of gwb43 -but most importantly the torture /war crimes . I still remember the impassioned floor speech Durbin gave - reciting how his father tried and convicted Axis officers for the crime of waterboarding.
We can only pray that we have a restoration of our moral ,political , ethical best values after 2009 .
And, testing - as always you make my head hurt trying to keep track of all the possible misdeeds - but jury tampering is pretty easy to understand - you violate a judge's order, you send the FBI to interview /intimidate witnesses - even a layman can understand how improper, & illegal this tampering appears to be - as it is described.
I would still like to hear from the Special Agent in Charge -as to how he/she was consulted if at all - before the judge's order was violated by sending the agent to interview the juror .
Indeed generally it will be good some day to have a complete record of how law enforcement in general & THE FBI - in particular was made an unwilling patsy to all of this DOJ tampering with our judicial system . I still remember early on that the FBI Station Chief San Diego resigned his post in protest of the USA Carol Lamm termination .That Station Chief stated in the clear for the record that he could gurantee that Carol lAMM BEING FIRED WAS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED .
Yep we all better keep our powder dry until the next Administration comes to power .And sadly with Richard Melon Scaife endorsing Sen cLINTON I now have little hope that Hillary would actually clean house .
Sure pray that sometime after November -Sen Durbin gets the opportunity to go after the torturers in a way that would make his Daddy proud !
May 3, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing ,
And just where did gsb327 , and all of his alter egos skedaadle too - My money says that "they" thought about the disinformation "they" were spewing in the context of the Writ of Mandamus mentioned -and decided to quit exposing themselves to possible legal jeporady -
The question still stands -how deeply involved was the White House involved in the Wecht case ?
May 3, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sir,
In America, I thought freedom of speech is lawful. It is clear that you disagree with others; however it would be best to quite your rants on "legal jeopardy" etc. The simple fact is many people just do not care to have net wars with individuals that are clearly not rationale or center in fact.
May 9, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stop harassing posters:
Then stay out of this blog. You're not welcome on TPM.
May 11, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing,
I review postings on the Wecht case and comment from time to time. If you do not wish to have people comment on your blog, than you should not post.
Also, you are not TPM.
May 12, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully disagree. The issue is that a review of the US Attorney in this case is well past due. It is good that the appeals court has stayed the proceedings and hopefully the case will be dismissed shortly. Even with a dismissal, a review of the US Attorney's actions and motives in this case is warranted.
To date, no one has provided any evidence that the White House was involved. I realize that from your bio you seem to relish the Orwellian novels; however I think it is best to base claims in fact and reality.
May 9, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The changing positions, failures to explain, the pattern of providing unreliable statement which the attorneys are not allowed to make, and convoluted US Attorney statements are admissible evidence. This isn't valid:
The White House IT department has been linked with the OMNI forensics meeting last year, yet the US Attorney would have us believe they're confused about data access issues between the court and Executive Branch. White House personnel have been linked with this conference.
Also, the US Attorney has allegedly made statements which defy reason, and fail to adequately explain how they obtained the list of jurors.
There's allegedly been deliberate confusion from the US Attorney on whether there was or wasn't "permitted" jury polling after trial. First we were told this was normal; then it changed to niterviews; then silence after the DOJ realized the names were sealed, but they had contacted these sealed names.
May 11, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing,
Would you please provide a link to this allegation. You have made it before on your blog and I have yet to see any link to any documentation that supports the claim. I would truly be interested in seeing such information and documentation.
May 12, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue with the jury name disclosures is currently under review through defense motions. It is something that needs to be reviewed.
May 12, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing and Al,
I came across your posting on a google search on the Wecht case. The issue you have raised is already being addressed in motions by the defense team in the Wecht case. While the district judge on the Wecht case is clearly bias towards the prosecution, the appeals court has stepped in an stopped the court proceedings today.
Within the Pittsburgh area, the speculation is that the case was politically motivated by US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan as a means of gaining favor with the DOJ and White House that was clearly pushing for prosecutions of prominent Democrats. No one believes that the White House is directly involved in the proceedings of the case other than the view that the environment in the DOJ created by the political influence of the White House spawned such cases. This is an opinion shared by many in the Pittsburgh area which you and Al clearly disagree with.
Please understand that US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan has actively been seeking a federal judge appointment since taking over as US Attorney of the Western District of PA. A conviction of a prominent political figure such as Dr. Wecht coupled with the prosecutions of Former Mayor Tom Murphy and Former Sheriff Pete DeFazio would be feathers in her cap to gain favor with the White House for such an appointment. Now that the case of Dr. Wecht has fallen apart, it is clear that she is doing anything and everything to gain a conviction.
A review of this case is warranted and to my knowledge is currently taking place under the direction of Chairman Conyers.
May 9, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jury tampering is a war crimes issue. You've failed to explain how you magically did this, and did not use a direct link:
You failed to cite what you view as "the issue", and have no explained which defense motions you are referring:
It's improper to question, without qualification, the integrity of a sitting Federal Judge, counselor. "An stopped" is not English:
Fortuantely, the Unitd States isn't controlled by legal counsel in Pittsburg:
If nobody believes this, why are you attempting to refuse an argument which well supports what you disagree. This is a very good DOJ talking point. Did you write it yourself:
This is irrelevant:
This is irrelevant, and doesn't explain the White House involvement with the FBI and court:
The White House would have had to be involved with a transfer of information from the judicial branch to the FBI and US Attorney. Or is the decider unable to explain what all his people are doing? You can't argue that the US Attorney was trying to do something on her own, from the bottom up:
The case is supposedly going back to trial, and in the government view they have a strong case:
You've failed to justify confidence that she alone is acting. If everything is "OK" with the review, why are you concerned:
May 11, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for clearing that up. It is also a felony crime in the United States of America.
Sorry, I had thought I was commenting on someone’s blog that was following the case. The issue of how did the prosecution get the juror’s names has been raised in a motion by the defense and is currently under review by the district judge.
The judge is currently being questioned as such. An appeal on a motion to review the judge from the case has been filed by the defense in the case.
Ah, nice. Was wondering when you would flame me in your posting. You appear to do this action with all that comment here.
Yes, in your opinion it is irrelevant since it does not agree with your premise.
The court is currently reviewing the activities of the FBI in this case in relation to contacting the jurors. It is part of a defense motion filed.
The U.S. Attorney for the Western District of PA is the top law enforcement officer for the district. She is not at the bottom.
The case has been placed on hold per the appeals court pending appeals. The jury in the first case released statements that they viewed the case to be politically motivated and that the prosecution was unable to prove their case. Many prominent members of the U.S. Attorney’s Office have stated that the government has a lackluster case.
As for your claim that the government view they have a strong case, if such is true, we should be concerned about the government’s judgment here. Dr. Wecht’s legal team rested their case without putting up a single witness or entering a single piece of evidence. Dr. Wecht was charged with 41 criminal acts. The current conviction percentage on a criminal count in federal court is over 95%. Taking these facts all into account and comparing it to the outcome that Dr. Wecht’s jury was hung should be concerning to the government.
Even though a review is underway by Chairman Conyers, we all should be concerned if the accusations that a sitting U.S. Attorney misused her position to embark on selective prosecutions is true.
As for the Conyers review, it has been stonewalled due to the DOJ not being willing to release documents related to the case to congress.
May 12, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a legal citation, which GSB27 read. A jury poll is a poll conducted before deliberations are over. JamesDD has provided no legal citation to support his assertion that it is something else.
This is an error, and fails to explain how the issue of explaining their verdict arose.
Incorrect Assertion
The error is to change definitions mid-argument, but provide no documentation to explain the change, nor cite new authority:
Even if the above definition were true, you've failed to explain why anyone was demanding an explanation for the jury's votes. You're providing nothing that would explain away the concern.
You're changing the definition and terminology from "jury interview" to "jury poll"; and changing when it occurs from during a trial to after trial. You're confusing yourself.
Your argument if factually incorrect, confusing, not grounded in any caselaw, and meaningless. A jury poll, as GSB27 read it, was cited at the above link. It's too late to appear, still provide no legal authority, and adjust your terminology. Your argument is not timely.
May 11, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
????
May 12, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you're changing your sourcing. Before, you said you "knew the law"; then you changed to "just the messenger"; now you're saying something else based on a TV Show. This is flawed:
That's not a legal authority. It's a fictionalized account.
Your "definition" of a jury poll fails to explain the US government's contradiction. Originally the US Attorney asked that we believe the post-trial "interviews" were normal, but failed to mention that when the court does not permit this contact, the post-trial interviews are not allowed under the attorney standards of conduct. Your assertion does not explain how the US Attorney can credibly believe the contacted with sealed jurors names was permitted, given the asserted/convoluted method the US Attorney had to use to move from the potential jurors' names to the seated jurors' names. Your explanation fails to account for the improbable chance of (according to the government) selecting only one juror name and only interviewing one juror without accessing the seated juror list.
The issues is less what the definition of a jury poll is, but looking at how the US government was attempting to couch the FBI contacts. Even if we accept your definition as true -- that a jury poll occurs after final verdict in court on their vote -- this does not explain the US Attorney-FBI assertion they could conduct home inerviews of their reasons.
Even using your definition -- which we do not -- you've failed to explain why we should believe a "jury poll" asking for the up/down vote is or isn't the same as examining their reasons for voting. Your definition does not adequately explain why the FBI or US Attorney was interested in the reasons for the vote; while your definition of a jury poll merely asks what the vote was, without explanation for the rationale. You're spltting the wrong hairs on the wrong, invalid argument. You're digging yourself into a hole on this one.
May 11, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alleged Defamatory Comment
This discusses alleged defamatory comments about the court officers in writing on TPM.
TPM policy:
You agree not to use TPMCafe or the Service to:
1. upload, post
May 11, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an unqualified statement:
The court concludes the opposite:
You haven't discussed the judicial cannons, despite your assertion you "know" the law. You've represented yourself as "knowing" something you're not contradicting: the law, prohibitions against alleged defamation on TPM.
You have no legal defense to an allegation of defamation. It appears you're recklessly ignoring the express language in the articles you're citing.
When you fully comply with the TPM posting policy, you will not be subject to no-notice bans.
May 11, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As stated before, you are not TPM.
May 12, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please stop attacking posters that do not agree with your point of view.
May 12, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allegation GSB27 and JamesDD Confused Their IDs
The Federal case is in Philadelphia. However, someone is posting as if they're from Pittsburg, 345 miles away.
The problem is JamesDD's ID is from Philadelphia:
But GSB27's location is Pitssburg:
The Federal appeals court is in Philadelphia, something not a factor until after the trial appeal.
The trial was in downtown Pittsburg.
JamesDD cannot explain why he, supposedly living in Philadelphia, knows about things in Pittsburg "as if" a native of Pittsburg.
The person using the JamesDD and GSB27 ID's appears to have been thinking as if they were one ID; but they were posting with the wrong ID.
Questions
Why is JamesDD posting as if he's familiar with the Pittsburg-area opinion, but he supposedly is living in Philadelphia?
Why should anyone believe that one poster lent their computer to someone in another city, 345 miles away? That defies reason.
Even if the ID's were correct, one ID is posting information that they're admitting is not from where they are, but a city 345 miles away. That' not special knowledge, but second-hand reporting.
May 12, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
As stated before, I am a native Pittsburgher who lives in Philadelphia now. I still follow local politics and law happenings in the burgh.
May 12, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please stop slandering and defaming me within your postings. On multiple occasions you have stated that I am GSB27. You have been informed more than once that I am not.
Please stop violating the TPM comment policy.
May 12, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. The case of Dr. Wecht has already bee through multiple pre-trial appeals. If you had been following the case and researching it as you have claimed in your postings, you would be aware of this fact and would not have made such a flawed assertion.
If anyone is posting second hand knowledge it is you.
Also, I ask the you please stop violating TPM policy and reposting my personal profile on your blog site.
May 13, 2008 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Contradiction On Timing Of Jury Poll, Whether There Is Or Is Not A Verdict
We don't need any more discussion. Even using their flawed definition of jury poll, they're confused about when/if a hung jury does or doesn't have a verdict to poll. It does not. By definition, a hung jury has not reached a verdict.
Here's another cut at the inconsistency. Note, the contrast is the trial phase. One situation deals with a verdict, where there is no hung jury; the other is where there is no conclusion:
With a hung jury, there is no "verdict". Using your (incorrect) definition of "jury poll," here would never have been a verdict, so no jury poll. However, a jury poll is a ccourt-directed question of the jury, before final verdict, about the benefits of continuing with deliberations, to overcome a deadlocked jury. The goal of a jury poll is not to ask about retroactive decisions after verdict, but it is a prospective look at more deliberations to reach a verdict.
Your definition incorrectly presumes there has been a verdict; the real jury poll takes place before the deliberations are over. By definition, a hung jury means there is no verdict. You've defeated your own argument. We need not consider you seriously.
Putting aside the issue of jury poll, the US Attorney has not adequately explained why there were post-trial contacts with juror whose names were sealed.
May 12, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spaceholder
May 12, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!!
All beware the poster of this blog is a known spammer on TPM that throws unsubstantiated allegations on the news blogs that link to his unsubstantiated rants on this blog.
If you chose to leave a comment on his blog that does not agree with his conspiracy driven dribble, the blogger will in turn attack you. He has a history of flaming people throughout the TPM site.
He rants that anyone that disagrees with him is somehow connected to the DOJ, attempting to spread misinformation since the poster does not agree with him, attempts to connect the poster to another poster in a means of discrediting him/her, or attempts to claim the commenter is violating TPM policy for posting a divergent point of view.
While there may be some truth in the posting, it is only surely a result of pure accident on his part if there is so. Testing simply posts things he does not know about and then says because no one has stopped to explain the topic to him and the ins and outs, there must be a conspiracy.
Proceed at your own risk.
May 13, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment