Somebody fill me in: Is this a case of the Justice Department throwing the case to help Stevens with his re-election, or are these politically hired lawyers simply incompetent?

The fix is definitely in. Stevens has too many friends in high places. He's gonna skate and win reelection. Pathetic.

These lawyers are the best and the brightest of those hired after graduating from a certain 3rd rate religious school and then surviving the culling of the herd during the US Attorney firings. What were you expecting?

for some strange reason, the name Monica Goodling keeps popping into my mind.

When "We the People" allow accountability to be dismissed, those in power from BOTH sides will have no reason to not abuse that power. This has been going on for many years and is now at the stage that it is expediting our demise from a democratic nation. Problem is, the power is so far from the local level, citizens are no longer involved, and unless we are once again allowed to fire or prosecute those in charge, it not only will not but also cannot slow down its progression... IMHO

this is infuriating.

what the fuck is going on with the prosecution here?

this is bush league bullshit. who is calling the shots in the prosecution?

this is totally fucked.

i don't see how this would warrant a mistrial however. and i don't quite see how the 'evidence' is exculpatory exactly. whether or not stevens would have hypothetically paid for the renovations IF he had been billed for them doesn't seem to excuse him from reporting them. he was aware of their value. aware that he received them. and failed to report them.

maybe someone with a better understand of the laws and charges in question can address this?

this all seems fishy because the things the prosecution have fucked up don't seem to be things that would have sunk their case but fucking them up would/could sink the case.

As I recall, there was a similar problem in the OJ Simpson case, because the prosecution failed to provide the defense with reports on fiber evidence, with the result that the evidence was not admitted.

So prosecutors make mistakes, and that sounds like what happened here.

It would seem more likely that the judge would grant a continuence for a short period for the defense to digest the evidence and utilize it accordingly giving them the time they would have had if they had received it earlier.

This would not be the first time that career prosecutors were handcuffed by political appointees in order to protect political allies of the Bush administration. During the tobacco trial, at least, prosecutors were told -- at the last minute -- to take far less aggressive positions in pleadings and negotiations than they had previously taken, thus appearing both weak and inconsistent.

Anyone who has ever worked in the criminal justice system knows that prosecutors do this sort of thing all the time. So this is no shock. What would be a shock is if the judge actually declares a mistrial.

It's totally unfair but completely common. Hardly anyone ever gets hit with prosecutorial misconduct charges because the system is way too tilted in favor of the government.

Not a fan of Stevens, but he is entitled to a fair trial. And, somehow, the fact that McCain hates him reflects well on Stevens. Besides, I'm sure Stevens is guilty of much more egregious crimes than free home renovations - he is a Republican, after all.

Cheney, Bush, Gonzo, et al, are getting away with much worse....

I could be wrong but didn't DeLay try this tactic..guess it doesn't matter now...because on last report the Bush appointed crooked judges in Texas, let DeLay off...they said the "bribery charge" wasn't an offence..because the money exchanged was in check form not cash form...and the law says "cash payment" (need gallons of hot tar and tons of feathers, there in Texas..)

The Justice Department often sandbags because they know they can get away with it.

When you are facing a Senator the rules change and they just haven't adapted.

The judge had warned them about letting a witness leave with out disclosure, so this is at least the second strike....

They deserve to lose another one...

Saw This One Coming

A possible mistrial is not something that suddenly appeared out of the blue, but has been well discussed. I still haven't gotten a clean story about these issues: It is not a surprise to me there are issues of prosecutorial misconduct; or that there is a chance of a mistrial.

This is my favorite:

"No judge would dismiss an indictment for the nonsense you raised."

News: The judge is considering dismissing the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct. There was no adequate discussion of these issues.

I practice criminal law in federal courts. The law on discovery in federal criminal cases is much different than people assume.

The Jencks Act provides that the gov't does not have to turn over witness statements to the defense until after the witness has finished testimony on direct examination. As a practical matter to avoid delay, the statements are usually turned over, but only a week or two before trial. Federal criminal discovery is not wide ranging nor provided much in advance.

That said, the more detailed story here is that the gov't claims it failed to turn over one report of many and just realized the error. I don't know enough of the backstory to have an opinion.

The judge is a reagan appointee. Reminds me of the joke that a civil libertarian is a right winger with a friend in trouble.

Good lawyers work in private firms, and those who can't work for the government. That's why good defense attorneys find loopholes that get their clients acquitted.