When a prosecution witness and a juror are doing the horizontal mambo, it seems to me that you there exists a significant reason for a do-over. And if it is an investigator and a witness? Well, the conflict is different, but it certainly provides enough of a taint to warrant overturning a conviction.

Attorneys for former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) have accused an FBI agent involved in the Stevens corruption investigation of having an inappropriate relationship with a key witness in the case.

Based on a complaint by an FBI whistleblower, Agent Chad Joy, the Stevens defense team claims that Mary Beth Kepner, the lead FBI agent on the case, had a personal relationship with Bill Allen, the CEO of an Alaska oil services firm and a witness against Stevens.

Stevens’ lawyers state that Joy’s memo “strongly suggests that the inappropriate relationship was sexual.” Joy stated that Kepner “wore a skirt for Allen” on a day that he was to testify in the case.

Joy also charges that Kepner may have provided secret grand jury information to Allen about other ongoing federal investigations.

I agree with Ed Morrissey on this one:

The affair may be the lesser of the concerns prosecutors have over this motion. Joy informed the prosecution of the relationship on or before December 2nd, but did not reveal it to the court on that day. That could represent prosecutorial misconduct if the judge rules that the information was relevant and germane to the defense — and it’s hard to argue that a sexual relationship between a key witness and an FBI agent wouldn’t go to credibility.

The entire Stevens case was marked with assorted irregularities by the prosecution. Justice is a good thing – but I’m starting to wonder if what was done in this case was not justice.

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

This is a sensible action by the New Jersey Supreme Court in response to an absurd ruling by an appellate court. Hopefully this is the prelude to that ruling that overturns a decision that would expose newspapers (and others) to civil liability for repeating information found in public records and court filings.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has suspended a state appellate court ruling that said a newspaper can be sued for libel for reporting allegations from a lawsuit before any court proceedings have taken place.

The one-page order issued yesterday puts a hold on the November 2008 decision by the appeals panel, but does not reverse it.

The appeals court decision stemmed from a March 2006 story in The Record of Bergen County. It reported a federal bankruptcy court complaint alleging that Thomas John Salzano misappropriated money from a now-defunct Newark telecommunications company.

Salzano filed suit against the newspaper, saying the allegations in the complaint were unfounded.

The appeals court decision reversed a lower court ruling that dismissed the libel claim.

This goes right to the heart of the First Amendment and the right of the people to know what is going on in the courts. After all, court filings are public documents related to the administration of justice – and if a report about the allegations in a lawsuit (or criminal complaint) are accurate, it is really irrelevant whether or not the underlying allegation is true. After all, could you imagine, for example, OJ Simpson suing after his acquittal on murder charges on the basis that news reports defamed him? That is precisely what the appellate ruling would permit – making reporting on the courts a dangerous proposition for the press.

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

I’ll be honest – I’m not sure whether the court ought to uphold or strike down the part of the Voting Rights Act that is being challenged in this case. On the one hand, I consider the statute as written to be terribly flawed – but on the other, I don’t believe that a statutory flaw is necessarily constitutes ground for a finding of unconstitutionality. After all, an unwise enactment is not necessarily unconstitutional. Still, the argument made in this case is intriguing – namely the fact that the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act is based upon findings of discrimination that occurred four decades ago while ignoring current realities constitutes a flaw of constitutional proportions.

Of course, I wrote about this very issue at the time this provision was renewed – so while I won’t offer an opinion on what the Supreme Court ought to decide, I will remind you of why I was troubled by the renewal.

VRA Renewal: Solving The Problems Of 1964 Until 2032

In 2032 I will, God willing, turn 69. The data used to determine which states need special monitoring for racial discrimination in voting will turn 68 -- making it more than old enough to collect social security if that program still exists.

That is why today's knee-jerk renewal of certain provisions of that law is an absurd act of political cowardice by the House of Representatives.

The House yesterday easily approved an extension of key provisions of the landmark Voting Rights Act, after GOP leaders quelled a rebellion within the party's Southern ranks that threatened to become a political embarrassment.

Before the 390 to 33 vote to extend the measure for a quarter-century, the House defeated four amendments that would have diluted two expiring provisions and possibly derailed final passage before the November congressional elections. With the House hurdle now cleared, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he hoped to bring the extension to the Senate floor before the August recess.

The act's temporary provisions do not expire until next year, but Republican leaders had hoped that early action would earn goodwill from minority voters as members of Congress head into a brutally competitive fall campaign season.

"Today, Republicans and Democrats have united in a historic vote to preserve and protect one of America's most important fundamental rights -- the right to vote," said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).

Wrong, Mr. Speaker. Democrats and Republicans have become a sleuth of pander-bears. These provisions were meant to expire in 1970, and use data that is woefully outdated to limit the effective coverage of the act to aonly a few states.

It seems clear that some members of Congress have been in hibernation for the last four decades.

In urging adoption of the act, Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, recalled marching on Bloody Sunday, a turning point in the movement for black voting rights in 1965, when the police in Selma, Ala., beat 600 civil rights demonstrators.

"I gave blood," Mr. Lewis said, his voice rising, as he stood alongside photographs of the clash. "Some of my colleagues gave their very lives."

"Yes, we've made some progress; we have come a distance," he added. "The sad truth is, discrimination still exists. That's why we still need the Voting Rights Act, and we must not go back to the dark past."

Fine, I can accept some sort of renewal of these provisions of the VRA. But none of these provisions is about turning the clock back four decades. Indeed, one of the defeated amendments (opposed by Democrats as a killer amendment) would have targeted voting issues as they exist TODAY, not back when I was still an infant.

A second amendment, offered by Rep. Charles Whitlow Norwood Jr. (R-Ga.), would have made every district potentially subject to the pre-clearance requirement, by including any jurisdiction where voter turnout fell below 50 percent in a presidential election. It would have eased the pre-clearance requirement for jurisdictions with voter turnout above 50 percent in three consecutive presidential elections, presuming that no court had found that discriminatory voting practices were employed. The measure failed 318 to 96.

Wow -- considering voter turnout in elections taking place TODAY was labeled as being against civil right. Applying the law to what happened in 2004 and what will happen in 2008 is not as important as correcting what happened in the election when Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater. Good grief -- would you accept the advice of a doctor who shunned MRIs and CAT scans and stuck strictly to old-fashioned x-rays because that was what he learned in medical school back in the 1960s? Of course not! Then why engage in the illogically absurd practice of using antiquated measures to determine racial discrimination -- and demand that they continue to be used for another quarter century?

Even suggesting that the renewal be done for a decade rather than a quarter century was labeled as a poison pill. Never mind that those who wrote these provisions thought it sufficient that they expire after five years -- now, four decades later, anything less than an extension of 25 years is tantamount to repealing the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

I've expressed my frustration over this issue a number of times in the past. I'm not persuaded by anything I've read today. Far from being a profile in courage, the blind renewal of these provisions of the VRA is a profile in political and moral cowardice.

Here's hoping the Senate has the backbone either to make the Voting Rights Act relevant to the problems that exist today or to allow these provisions to expire as their authors intended them to do.

UPDATE: Interesting takes on the case at Law Blog, SCOTUSBlog, ACSBlog, BLT, The Corner

Posted by: Greg at 12:40 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 986 words, total size 8 kb.