« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Alaska is a State of Denial
Sen. Ted Stevens: Convicted or not convicted? That is the question.
And apparently one whose answer changes depending on who you ask.
In most people's minds, there's little to argue. On Monday, a jury returned a verdict of guilty on all seven counts of false statements. The charges against Stevens were felonies, making the senator -- by most counts -- a convicted felon.
But Stevens, back in Alaska campaigning for his eighth term in the Senate, met his opponent, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, in a debate last night and denied that he had been convicted at all.
"I'm not gonna step down. I have not been convicted," the 84 year-old senator stammered. "I have got a case pending against me. And probably the worst case of prosecutorial. . . misconduct by the prosecutors."
It might be worth noting that Stevens has a history of denial.
Josh
Zachary
Um, convicted felons can't vote, right? So can he now vote? If he tries to vote, is that voter fraud?
I wonder if he voted early... "just in case."
October 31, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess this is the Alaskan way. First, Sarah Palin denied that she was found guilty of ethics violations when, in fact, she was. Now, Sen. Stevens denies that he was convicted of felonious crimes when, in fact, he was.
Apparently denial is not only a river in Egypt, its a state of existence in Alaska.
October 31, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it with Alaska? First we have Palin claiming she was exonerated in Troopergate, and now Stevens saying he was not convicted.
Maybe Alaska will benefit from all its national press putting the spotlight on how sleazy its politics is.
October 31, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is technically correct. Its semantics. Legally speaking, your not "convicted" until you have been "sentenced." For now, Sen. Stevens has been found guilty of the charges. The reason for the difference is because after being found guilty, you have post-trial rights (not including appeals) where the judge can overturn the finding of guilt, one of them being prosecutorial misconduct.
So all the reports of the Senator not being able to vote are all red herrings. He isn't convicted in the legal sense until he has been sentenced which will not be for some time.
October 31, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, no. That's not how it works.
The phrase that a person is innocent until proven guilty refers to legal as opposed to factual guilt. In every case, the defendant either committed the offense or he did not; a fact that will remain true regardless of whether the jury acquits or convicts the defendant. The phrase means simply that a person is not legally guilty until a jury returns a verdict of guilty—which is little more than a tautology.
Stevens can argue he's innocent, but in the eyes of the law, he's guilty.
October 31, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, your missing the point and are completely wrong. This has nothing to do with presumption of innocence or legal or factual guilt. For the purposes of being defined as a "convicted felon," the trigger for conviction is NOT A FINDING OF GUILT, it is a FINDING OF GUILT + THE IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE.
I am not defending Stevens I am just telling you as a lawyer he is correct. He hasnt been "convicted." The word conviction is a legal term of art, so all the wikipedia references matter not.
October 31, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm
October 31, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
To correct a few minor details, Stevens is technically not convicted until the court enters final judgment against him. That usually happens immediately after sentencing (same day). On the other hand, Stevens is expected to file a motion requesting that the court set aside the jury verdict. If that motion is granted, the court would likely order a new trial, and it would start over from the beginning (jury selection, etc.).
October 31, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not covicted of anything? I'll bet if he stands on his rap-around porch, he can see Riker's Island.
October 31, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is there so little comment that Stevens, like Scooter, got to walk out of the court unhindered while Democrats in their position get shackled and hauled off to jail on the spot. I'm thinking Of Don Siegelman and Paul Minor, and I believe Georgia Thompson also had to sit in prison while waiting for sentencing and appeals.
October 31, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if he hasn't been convicted, he has nothing to appeal. So is he not going to appeal? If he appeals, he must have been convicted.
Maybe he'll be stupid enough to vote, then they can get him on voter fraud because felons can't vote. In any event, someone should ask him about it.
October 31, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the moose meat. If you don't cook it long enough you get worms in the brain. It causes delusions of grandeur and high toxic levels of arrogance. Palin's got it too. I'm betting this will be the line of defense.
October 31, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, in a legal sense, Alaska may be one of those states where a person is not convicted until the judge has pronounced sentence. Post-adjudication, the person may still be diverted to a program allowing the conviction to be expunged. Of course, diversion is usually reserved for people who take responsibility for their criminal actions, which does not apply here. Once he's sentenced, he's convicted under anyone's definition. Any lawyers from Alaska here?
October 31, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You dont need an Alaska lawyer. The word conviction is a term of art. It means finding of guilt + the entry of a sentence. There hasn't been an entry of a sentence, therefore he hasn't been convicted. Its not because Alaska is backwards. Almost all if not all jurisdictions define it the same.
October 31, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right we don't need an Alaskan lawyer, we can look at the Alaska statutes online and once again you are wrong. Unless you can provide any evidence to your assertion that a conviction means finding of guilt + sentencing pleas stop saying it.
http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title12/Chapter55/Section005.htm
You see the sentencing happens after conviction.
http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title12/Chapter72/Section010.htm
Again conviction is defined separately from sentencing..
October 31, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not an Alaska issue. Stevens was tried in Federal court based on violations of U.S. statutes.
October 31, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Merrriam-Webster:
convict:
transitive verb
1. to find or prove to be guilty
intransitive verb
1. to find a defendant guilty
Um, yeah...
October 31, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we should give Alaskans their fondest wish...let them secede from the Union...Hell lets kick 'em out..no more Federal funds for them..no more trade with the lower forty-eight..no longer citizens of the United States...make them get a passport and a visa if they want to go into any "foreign" country.. (U.S., Russia or Canada)..isolate the ungrateful bastards in their own frigid little country..maybe we could invade them like we did Iraq...(for the oil and other natural resources)...fed up with the whining, and the "laws don't apply to US, we're special" crowd..!!
October 31, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ted is just fucking nuts. TPM has a clip where he is still claiming that Sadam had something to do with 9/11:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/31/stevens-911-iraq
Nutter.
John
October 31, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stevens voted "yes" on the bill which added to 5 USC 7371 to the US Code.
5 USC 7371 mandates removal of federal law officers immediately after they've been convicted and before any appeals or reviews or sentencing delays.
Stevens should accept the same legal definition of "conviction" and the same consequences which he voted to apply to law officers.
October 31, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stevens is delusional.
I don't care whether 'in his heart he is innocent.' I'm not going to vote for him.
He has needed to retire before this, but NOW???
We're still waiting for him to quit blaming his wife or anyone else except himself.
This is not just an ALASKA problem. This is a SENATE problem. The arrogant old coot should be expelled immediately. When is the Senate going to do the right thing??
I'm voting ABT - anybody but Ted.
October 31, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me Sen. Stevens should step down.
While on the Stevens subject, I think the issue of Stevens receiving house improvements for free is equal to Obama getting help from Rezko on his house purchase. The home being reduced $300,000 to 1.6 million to Obama and the adjacent lot being purchased over the appraised value by $125,000 @ $625,000 doesn't sound legal. The appraiser complained that his value of $500,000 was removed from the bank file. Then Obama purchased 1/6 of the lot from Rezko's wife for $104,000 rendering the balance of the lot useless. Sounds like "favors" to me.
Chicago politics at their worst. If McCain had done this he would be up on some kind of charges.
October 31, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wish I could have heard his opponents response to that one. Might it have been, "You've got to be on drugs"?
In prison, sentences can be overturned. By the same pathetically weak standard, he will never be convicted. Perhaps the millions of other felons America has in large measure manufactured ought to take on the same right.
So, we are taking the word of a felon? I thought Stevens' failure to get honest and be gone was enough insult. This has been eclipsed by "I have not been convicted", this year's functional equivalent of "I am not a crook".
November 1, 2008 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink