« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Wecht Defense Counsel Motion on 'Jury Poll'
According to the wiki on Wecht, there is some inconsistent information floating around about the Wecht Trial. Some have said that jury polling is permitted; and that the FBI agents were engaged in lawful interviews.
Defense counsel contends an individual "jury poll" -- interviews by a judge of the jury members during trial during deliberations -- never occurred. According to the defense:
"The procedures violated were that the judge failed to poll jurors individually to ensure they were, in fact, deadlocked, failed to ask the attorneys if they consented to a mistrial, failed to show the attorneys the final note from the jurors that said they were "essentially" deadlocked, and failed to question the jury foreman."
This language above explicitly links "jury poll" with an in-court action, during trial, before the jury reaches it's conclusion. A "jury poll" as the defense counsel is using the term, has nothing to do with post-trial interviews.
The court of appeals has stayed the second trial pending a review of defense motion that a second trial of Wecht would be double jeopardy.
The first trial is over. There is no set date for a second trial.
The court said prosecutors were allowed to record the names of the seated jurors.
The government has no adeuately explained how did the FBI agents get the names of the seated jurors to conduct post-trial home interviews, different than a jury poll.
Comments (39)
correction:
July 4, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the court said that the prosecution was not allowed to record the names down in writing and leave the court room with them. The court failed though to not permit the prosecution from writing the names down from memory after leaving the court room, and yes, the names were disclosed to the prosecution prior to trial.
What will happen here is that in his haste, the district judge wrote an order that was easily circumvented. It is unfortunate that such occurred, but not surprising if you know the caliber of the district judge in question.
July 5, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is more information about:
- Jury polling in re Wecht, as distingushed from an FBI home interview
- Wecht defense counsel motions
- The end of the first trial
- Post trial contacts
- Explanations on the sealed list of jurors
- Orders from court prohibiting names from being recorded
- The appeals court decision to stay the proceedings
- There no longer being an established date for a second trial
- Member of Congerss concerns about the FBI interviews, as distingushed from the permitted court jury poll during trial
July 4, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
When there is a hung jury, and the court seals the juror names, that implicitly means:
July 4, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you write here is simply no true. Both the prosecution and the defense are permitted to talk with the jurors post a mistrial as long as the jurors are released from jury duty. courts actually want such discussions to take place so that both sides understand how close the decision may have been in an effort to perhaps reach an out of court settlement.
In this situation, the jurors' names were not sealed from either the prosecution or the defense. The jurors' names were disclosed to them prior to trial. They were however not permitted to record the names in the courtroom and leave with such recordings.
The jurors' names were sealed from the public due to the publicity surrounding the case.
Pretty much everything else you write here is unsubstantiated speculation based on your lack of understanding of both the facts of the Wecht case and an understanding of the practice of law.
July 5, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jury tampering is something the court may define, conclude, and impose sanctions on the govenment for engaging. The court proceedings for the first trial are over; but the lessons of this case will continue.
The Judicial branch is not bound by the Presecutors, President, or Congress. It may explicitly charge -- through judicial power -- the FBI agents and US Attorney with tampering with jury members after a court order to not record those names.
The court alone may or may not conclude what does or does not constitute "Jury tampering" and whether this is or isn't something that the court will find the President, US Attorney, FBI agents, or others in contempt of court. The court may reasonably conclude that this post-trial contact substantially violated the court order; and that all US government officials connected with this contact are in contempt of court.
July 4, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any assertion that the court is "subject to" Congress or the President ignores the Separation of Powers. The President and Congress are not above the Courts. The Courts may, if it determines, conclude a rule is unconstitutional.
The courts, on their own, may establish rules substantially building off the lessons of the Wecht proceedings, and unilaterially assert judicial power as the court finds appropriate. There is nothing this President or Congress can (lawfully) do to stop the court from unilaterially asserting, and exercising judicial power.
Impeachment is off the table. Congress has given the courts a green light to do what they want.
July 4, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You clearly do not know the Wecht case at all. The court is not going to establish any such rules. The district court judge in question has ruled against Wecht and his lawyers on pretty much every motion. Wecht's lawyers have in fact attempted to have the judge removed for bias on three occasions. The first time, it was a 2 to 1 decision against removing the judge. The second time, the appeals court affirmed the first panel's decision, and the third time is pending.
This judge will not be doing any favors in support of Wecht.
July 5, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a nexus between the President, prisoner transporation systems (Guantanamo, Rendition), and information warfare. Recall, after 2001, OVP's Addington and CIA's Rizzo went to Guantanamo. MaryBeth Buchanan was connected with the US Attorney's office 2004-5.
Her attorney, after Buchanan was interviewed in the US Attorney firings, said she "did" what she was supposed to. This does not address, if at all, what she may "not" have done, on issues of alleged malfeasance.
DoD emails reference DOJ points of contact. Check the DOJ, ACLU, DoD, and other Emails. Here is Buchanan's disclosed email:
- When will the HASC, SASC, and Judiciary Committees review issues of alleged malfeasance in re Geneva, Nuremberg, and the US Attorney oversight or compliance programs?
- When Buchanan in 2004-5, two years after the POW abuse was known, did she fail to do something in overseeing any issues in DOJ?
- Has the Judiciary, SASC, or HASC, closed all issues on alleged malfeasance in re US Attorney's office, Buchanan, and malfeasance on alleged war crimes?
- Was Buchanan absent from all meetings on Geneva issues; and did the POW treatment never arise during any of Buchanan's reviews of any US Attorney oversight, ethics, or other compliance reviews?
July 4, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Buchanan was in the US Attorney's office, what reviews of the larger nexus did she make on issues related to Presidential authority:
- Did Buchanan ever coordinate on any DOJ OLC memoranda related to US Attorney oversight, enforcement, or ethics issues related to any issue that relied on DOJ memoranda which mentioned any of the Federalist Papers?
- What is Buchanan's postion on Federalist 23, and how she viewed then, 2004-5 the role of US Attorneys to enforce the Geneva conventions; have her views changed after the Supreme Court rulings in re Guantanamo and Habeas?
- What information was she provided before or during 2004-5 related to how Geneva should or should not be enforced through US Attorneys?
- Was Buchanan every at any meetings where US Attorneys raised comments about the POW working group; or did Buchanan every provide inputs to the POW working group meeting discussions with any JAGs?
- How did the products of the working group meetings on POWs factor into how Buchanan adjusted, reviewed, or otherwise implemented policies over any DoJ Staff or US Attorneys while she was in the US Attorneys office 2004-5?
July 4, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dates and information above should reflect the following:
July 4, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
From:
She was traveling back and forth beween PA and DC while holding the position she had since 2001.
July 4, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this fact is known. It was one of the examples Leahy utilized to attempt to push forth a regulation on the DOJ preventing US Attorneys assigned to a specific district also holding a position in DC. Leahy's concern was that the district work would suffer and there are more than enough qualified people out there to not have to double up appointments.
July 5, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, consider these numbers/codes:
July 4, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check Buchanan's email and IP numbers, if any, overlapping with this RNC account connected with OVP.
July 4, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Consider this, evidence of travel, and personal contact with DC, and no need (in some cases) for email records of conversations with DC personnel:
We don't know who she was talking to in DC while she was shuffling back and forth between DC and PA.
July 4, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recall Ashcroft's meeting in the White House where POW issues were raised, and Ashcroft, in effect, said: "We shouldn't discuss this" Buchanan is connected with Ashcroft before her EOUSA assignment:
Also, the DOJ workflows show staffing between EOUSA, DAG, and the DOJ Staff. Here is a sample:
- What role did Buchanan play in any staffing of DOJ OLC comments sent through DAG, EUOSA, DOJ OLC, or OVP on any POW issues which Ashcroft raised?
- Where there any Geneva issues Buchanan was aware after 2001, and discussed with Ashcroft in re POW abuse, rendition, Guantanamo, the CIA black sites, or NAVAL interrogation centers?
- How did Buchanan, if at all, interact with Rizzo, CIA GC, or White House counsel, or OVP Addington on issues of Geneva, US Attorney roles in prosecutions, or the JAG rules on prosecutions?
July 4, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should be EOUSA, not "EUOSA"
July 4, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Buchanan is connected with Ashcroft. Ashcroft was her boss. Ashcroft also praised her for the Tommy chong and Extreme Associates cases.
The fact Buchanan is known to Ashcroft does not substantiate any of your allegations she is connected with Gitmo.
July 5, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a PDF of documents available in 1989, twelve (12) years before 9-11: Here are some of the sample legal issues Buchanan would have had access to.
While assigned to EOUSA, when did Buchanan do a review of the training videos in the "Legal Education Institute"?
Where was Buchanan when the training reviews were done on the US Attorney Geneva-compliance requirements within the EOUSA training videos, packages, and other information?
How was this review done on these training programs coordinated with the JAGs to ensure full compliance with Geneva?
July 4, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vol 44, No 3 of the Bulletin shows Buchanan's name, and lists the Legal Education Institute.
She and the Institute overlapped within DoJ; and there's a reasonable basis to ask how Buchanan relied on this bulletin, connected with her office, to adequately oversee the Geneva compliance videos, and other training provided through the Institute.
- What reading records are there of what actions Buchanan took after reviewing this bulletin?
- Where are the DOJ Workflows showing the audits done on the Institute?
- Is Buchanan saying in 2008 that she was not aware of details within a bullet connected with her office; and not aware of the Institute, the training programs, or the Geneva-compliance requirements within the Conventions as applicable to legal counsel?
July 4, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"bullet" should be "bulletin"
July 4, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
After Sept 2001 the US was drafting language to prosecute people (POWs) for war crimes. This planning presumably relied on a review of legal standards.
What role did Buchanan play in providing inputs to the guidance US Attorneys would play in enforcing the AUMF/laws of war/US statutes against POWs through prosecutions?
How is it possible that Buchanan after Sept 2001 would not have had any input to any Geneva-related compliance review, standard, or other guidance to any US Attorney?
How could a legal review of Geneva -- as applied to POWs -- not also trigger a review of the procedures used to prosecute those prisoners?
Why do the SASC25/DoD email/documents show Geneva concerns with foreseeable litigation after 2001?
July 4, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the USAM, look at the GAO investigations triggering communications within EOUSA. Note the connection beween EOUSA and the EOUSA Legal counsel:
This GAO request would trigger a USAO office message, communication, or interaction with legal counsel. Presumably, legal counsel would have told Buchanan, when she was with EOUSA and the director, of any GAO requests related to any US Attorney investigation, war crimes issue, or any Geneva related issues.
July 4, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above information establishes:
- Buchanan was linked to Ashcroft 2003-5
- Addington and CIA GC Rizzo met in 2002 at Guantanamo to discuss POW detention
- There are GAO-related communications with the EOUSA Director
Consider this, about a rendition aircraft:
- What did Buchanan know about the evidence gleaned from rendition/abuse
- Did Buchanan review with White House counsel the OVP/CIA GC trip report from Guantanamo after 2002?
- What information did Buchanan have about the movement of personnel through the President's prisoner transportation system?
- How did Buchanan coordinate with US Attorneys on efforts to gather evidence from the interrogations to prepare for prosecutions?
- When was GAO in contact with Buchanan's Geneval counsel on concerns with war crimes after the 2002 issues surfaced at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib?
July 4, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
When establishing guidance as Director of EOUSA, what review did Buchanan make of these video taping procedures?
What was her reaction when she learned the FBI agents' files about POW abuse at Guantnamo went missing, had been seized, or were not available?
Was Buchanan aware of any direction to any FBI agents to not conting gathering any wawr crimes evidence at Guantnanamo?
Buchanan says she "directed" FBI agents to do something in re Wecht.
Is Buchanan asking us to believe that she did "not" direct the FBI agents to stop reviewing any war crimes evidence at Guantanamo?
Why should we believe Buchanan's apparent conflicted story: One one hand saying that she "did" direct the FBI agents to do something in re Wecht; but she (apparently) had "no role" in FBI actions at Guantanamo on evidence retention, or war crimes evidence files?
July 4, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should read:
July 4, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the Nuremberg precedent, showing legal counsel and judges can be adjudicaed with war crimes if they refuse to enforce the laws of war.
July 4, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a 2007 letter from an attorney calling on Buchanan to resign. This was before we considered the link between EOUSA, Guantnamo; or the new Wecht Prosecution issues surfacing in 2008.
July 4, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above information relates to POW abuse, DOD issues, and Guantanamo.
This US Attorney-related email (comment, via TPM) shows there is a link between the DOD General counsel, and Buchanan:
Walker was connected with the POW working group through the prisoner treatment issues.
- What was Buchanan's response to this email about Walker?
- DiD Buchanan know about Walker's involvement with the POW issues in DoD?
- What did Buchanan do to review the recommendation, and look at walker's credentials and actions in DoD working with POWs?
July 4, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mary Walker was the lead person, coordinator, overseeing the POW working group.
July 4, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why was there so much attention on excuses to deny Geneva protections on the basis of the POW's status; but no regard to the United States' obligations as a detainin power to ensure all POWs are treated with respect at Geneva requires: Free from all abuse?
Why was there emphasis on the standards against torture, when the real standard -- Geneva, barring all POW abuse -- was not given attention when establishing procedures to gather evidence, and work with US Attorneys to prepare cases for trial?
Who in the US Attorneys office was involved with the POW working group meetings after 2001; and interacted with Mary Walker of DOJ?
Are there no records from anyone inside EOUSA who attended these POW working group meetings; and no record of Buchanan reviewing any summaries of these working group meeting minutes?
Did Buchanan agere with Addington that all evidence from POW abuse could be used, regardless the POW treatment, or possible evidence taint?
When involved with EOUSA, what reviews did Buchanan have on any POW case files to help the US Attorneys establish policies to review evidence, manage cases, and establish progress/milestones for cases?
How did Buchanan at EOUSA establish guidance and policies to evaluate whether US Attorney case mangement plans in re POW prosecutions were or were not reasonable?
July 4, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reconsider this:
There should be records supporting what legal counsel are saying about these communications beween DoJ and the White House.
July 4, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which of the "processes" is Specter referring:
Geneva compliance programs?
POW interrogation?
What about involvement with EOUSA-related decisions, plans, guidance, and prosecution decisions, evidence collection, or case management policies that allegedly ignored the Geneva Conventions?
From:
When will the public get a chance to review the transcript; and examine any Geneva/Nuremberg issues which the Judiciary may have not raised?
July 4, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Notice this DOJ-connected summary, explicitly showing someone inside DOJ agreed that Geneva did not apply.
What role did Buchanan play in providing inputs to the EOUSA representatives to DOJ meetings on the POW working group?
How did these DOJ-related meetings, outside the POW working group, consider specific comments from Buchanan?
How did Buchanan develop policies for US Attorneys while Director EOUSA while relying on the summary conclusion at the link in this comment?
Once the Working Group, including the DOJ Lawyers, "agreed" to something, how was this "agreement" used within EOUSA to organize, and make consistent all policies for the US Attorneys on how evidence will be obtained, managed, stored, and presented for trial?
What role did Buchanan have in reviewing this agreement at the link in this comment when leading efforts to organize US Attorney case management/evidence presentation policyes for prosecution?
July 4, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strange how someone, who was a director of the EOUSA, could spend six [6] hours in a hearing where she wasn't involved.
Was it like this:
Six hours of, "I wasn't involved"?
July 4, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mary Walker is linked with this personnel training system on national security issues:
When did Buchanan, if at all, access this information when reviewing how US Attorneys, when traveling to Guantanamo, would or would not meet the security requirements while at secure DoD facilities?
July 4, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are the records of EOUSA or WaPenn US Attorney office access to this website:
- When did Buchanan review Geneva-related material at the JAG websites when developing policies for the US Attorneys in prosecuting prisoners?
- When was the first time Buchanan heard Mary L. Walker's name in the context of the Department of Defense, US Attorneys, Geneva, prisoners, or the laws of war?
- What emails did Walker and EOUSA Buchanan exchange on JAG-related issues when developing prosecution policy or other EOUSA-policies which Buchanan had input related to Geneva, POW abuse, rendition, FISA issues, prisoner detention, prisoner trials?
July 4, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let me get this straight. Because Buchanan instructed the FBI to conduct interviews with the jurors, she was the Executive Director of the US Attorney's Office for a brief period, and she knew Ashcroft because she work for him, she is somehow involved with Gitmo, Prisoner Interrogations in CIA prisons, etc.
Yeah, you are not reaching at all with this one. Surprised it only took you three comments to nose dive off the road of reality into your paranoid delusional world.
July 5, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment