« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
"This Case Is All about Greed."
Finally, Brent Wilkes' trial is under way:
"Lies, deceit, greed. Most of all greed. This case is all about greed," Assistant U.S. Attorney Phillip Halpern told jurors as he laid out the government's case in his opening statements...."The evidence will show the politician was bought by the defendant lock, stock and barrel," Halpern said, adding that the bribes include "the truly astonishing," such as machine gun lessons and the services of prostitutes.
Among the expected witnesses are Duke Cunningham's former staffers, former Pentagon officials, and Wilkes' nephew, who's expected to give the most detail about how his uncle kept Cunningham in pocket. Cunningham is on the prosecutors' witness list, but apparently is not likely to be called.
Wilkes' lawyer Mark Geragos will make his opening statement next Tuesday -- when we'll finally hear how he plans to get his client off the hook.
Advertisement
What do you mean Duke is "not likely to be called"? The cited article states that that is exactly what he is expected to be and that he is in fact a linchpin in the case.
October 4, 2007 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, but I'm not sure it's the greatest strategy for the prosecutor to start out saying this case is "all about greed" since greed isn't actually against the law. Sure, it might get some moral juices flowing in a jury, but since most of the jury would probably like to be rich, too, I'm not sure it's a good selling point on the case.
October 4, 2007 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
what a cheap whore that Duke was.
He only got 7,500$ for every million he doled out in contracts for Wilkes !
If I lived close, I'd love to see ol Duke step into that box and tell the American taxpayer what he did with their hard earned dollars.
October 4, 2007 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
skepticrising:
but I'm not sure it's the greatest strategy for the prosecutor to start out saying this case is "all about greed" since greed isn't actually against the law. Sure, it might get some moral juices flowing in a jury, but since most of the jury would probably like to be rich.
the reason the prosecutor mentioned it --is to put greed when it comes up usually -- in crimes. When you justify it you're saying one can't become rich unless you commit a crime.
No, I think it should be said often as a reminder that living in the US one has much to be thankful for and that thankfully don't need alot of stuff, so it isn't necessary to steal from taxpayers to feed your greedy little existence.
October 4, 2007 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the prosecutor's comments would be perfect to describe this whole entire administration: "Lies, deceit, greed. Most of all greed."
October 4, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone else find it interesting that the charges against Wilkes for unlawful monetary transactions were mysteriously dropped? Those are also the charges that John Michael was supposed to answer to (besides the obstruction charge). What makes it curious to me is that JM's trial has been postponed indefinitely.
Many ill defendants have stood trial, even those with terminal ailments. Even Cunningham himself was in supposedly bad health at the time of his plea agreement and sentencing.
Anyone think that perhaps the delay in JM's trial could be that he finally cut a deal as well? TK already pled guilty to the same charge of unlawful monetary transactions, with obvious favor of the court. Could JM be following in the footsteps of his uncle and offering up someone else in order to save himself?
I'm not questioning JM's illness, yet I find it strange that the most severe charges against him, (unlawful monetary transactions) were the ones that the USA's dropped against his (former) co-defendant Wilkes.
Just an observation, anyone have any opinions?
October 6, 2007 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone else find it interesting that the charges against Wilkes for unlawful monetary transactions were mysteriously dropped? Those are also the charges that John Michael was supposed to answer to (besides the obstruction charge). What makes it curious to me is that JM's trial has been postponed indefinitely.
Many ill defendants have stood trial, even those with terminal ailments. Even Cunningham himself was in supposedly bad health at the time of his plea agreement and sentencing.
Anyone think that perhaps the delay in JM's trial could be that he finally cut a deal as well? TK already pled guilty to the same charge of unlawful monetary transactions, with obvious favor of the court. Could JM be following in the footsteps of his uncle and offering up someone else in order to save himself?
I'm not questioning JM's illness, yet I find it strange that the most severe charges against JM, (unlawful monetary transactions) were the ones that the USA's dropped against his (former) co-defendant Wilkes.
Just an observation, anyone have any opinions?
October 6, 2007 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink