« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Stevens' Jury Spots Errors in Government's Indictment
The prosecution has had serious bungles of their case against Sen. Ted Stevens -- one of which led to the exclusion of key evidence from consideration by the jury.
Now, it's not the defense but the jury that are calling the government on their missteps, pointing out an error in the indictment of the sitting senator.
From the AP:
Among the seven charges in the indictment, prosecutors said that Stevens checked "no" on financial documents when asked whether he received any gifts in 2001. Actually, he checked "yes," -- and jurors asked the judge what they should do about that.Prosecutors insisted it was merely a typographical error that didn't affect the overall charge. Stevens did disclose one gift in 2001, but it was not related to the case. He didn't disclose any gifts from oil contractor Bill Allen or his company, VECO Corp.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he would instruct jurors to consider only the evidence, not the indictment, when deciding whether to convict Stevens. He rejected the Justice Department's claim that it was merely a typo.
"Presumably somebody reads these indictments before they return them?" Sullivan said.
Josh
Zachary
Anything less than a guilty verdict indicates to me that with enough money in the right place (whether it's the prosecutor's office or potential jurors) one can get a technicality to replace justice.
Stevens has been ripping off taxpayers for decades and finally we find a way to make him accountable and we get bullshit about "typos".
The people need a conviction if for no other reason than to make other senators paranoid about deceiving the American people and getting lobbyist's legislation passed for personal gain.
Bribery should not be legally sanctioned, overlooked or so easily dismissed. Stevens needs to go down and give up ownership of Alaskan Justice.
October 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Presumably somebody reads these indictments before they return them?" Sullivan said.
Would that include, oh, maybe...the judge?
October 27, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink