Showing posts with label set aside. Show all posts
Showing posts with label set aside. Show all posts

Monday, December 31, 2012

EXPUNGE CRIMINAL RECORD FLINT GESESEE MICHIGAN 810-235-1970

DO YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER HAVE A COUPLE OF JUVENILE  CONVICTIONS MAKING IT HARD TO GET A JOB ,INTO A COLLEGE OR THE MILITARY?
Presented here,12/31/12/ by Flint Attorney Terry R. Bankert 810-235-1970, terry@attorneybankert.com, , www.attorneybankert.com
-------------------
On 12/30/2012 Governor Snyder signed into law an amendment to section 18e of chapter XIIA (MCL 712A.18e), as amended by 1996 PA 257. by Flint Attorney Terry R. Bankert 810-235-1970
see:http://www.abc12.com/story/20467852/new-law-makes-it-easier-to-erase-juvenile-crimes

This allows a person to have set aside more than one criminal conviction. This process is called expungement. Prior to this amendment a person was limited to one crime that could be expunged. Having your criminal record become important when applying for a job, the military of college and certain programs and funding sources. A tremendous burden has been taken from those that when young crossed the law and paid their penalty. As an adults they now can move on with their life.

Generally this new law , allows a person who has been sentenced to not more than 1 juvenile offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and not more than 3 juvenile offenses total, of which not more than 1 may be a juvenile offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and who has no adult felony convictions may file a petition with the courts that gave them the sentence for the entry of an order after a proper motion and hearing and complying with all portions of this law to set aside the juvenile sentences..



A citizen may have only 1 juvenile sentence for an offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and not more than 2 sentences for an offense that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult. A total of three juvenile acts can be expunged.


If there has never been a sentence in juvenile court for an act that would be a sentence to a felony if committed by an adult, not more than 3 sentences for an offenses that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult can set aside . Another way that three juvenile acts can be set aside.


If there were multiple sentences from one act they can be counted as just one with limitations. Multiple sentences arising out of a series of acts that were within 12 hours or less and that displayed a single intent and goal constitute 1 offense provided that none of the adjudications constitute any of the following:


(a) An assaultive crime as that term is defined in subsection .


(b) An offense involving the use or possession of a weapon.


(c) An offense with a maximum penalty of 10 or more years imprisonment.



There are offense sentences that cannot be expunged or set aside. A person shall not apply under this law to have set aside, and a judge shall not under this section set aside, any of the following:


(a) A sentenced for an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment.


(b) A sentence for a traffic offense under the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to 257.923, or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to that act, that involves the operation of a vehicle and at the time of the violation is a felony or misdemeanor.


(c) A conviction under section 2d of this chapter. This subdivision does not prevent a person convicted under section 2d of this chapter from having that conviction set aside as otherwise provided by law.
Juvenile orders for financial payments will remain in effect. For instance order of disposition placing a juvenile in or committing a juvenile to care outside of the juvenile's own home and under state, county juvenile agency, or court supervision shall contain a provision for reimbursement by the juvenile, parent, guardian, or custodian to the court for the cost of care or service. [


Before a person had to wait three years until after completion of their sentence now they only have to wait one year. A legal petition under this law shall not be filed until the expiration of 1 year following imposition of the disposition for the sentence that the applicant seeks to set aside, or 1 year following completion of any term of detention for that sentence, or when the person becomes 18 years of age, whichever occurs later.

Many young people cross the law. We now have responsibly changed the law so the crimes of our youth are truly forgiven.


-----notes-----
Gov. Rick Snyder has signed a bill to make it easier for people to wipe juvenile crimes off their record. [1] Governor Snyder approved 2011 PA 64, which amends a 46-year old Michigan law limiting courts to setting aside only one criminal conviction for one charge.[2]

The new law will allow people to go to court to erase up to three offenses a year after the case is closed, instead of five years. The old law allowed only one offense to be expunged. [1]

[A]ndividual [under the new law can]... petition the court to set aside a juvenile offense that might prove a barrier to move forward in life. The petitioner would be eligible to set aside one or more juvenile adjudications so long as he or she had three or fewer convictions, and not more than one of the three was a felony. [4]

"People who have turned their lives around find it difficult, if not impossible, to advance in life," said Haveman, R-Holland. "Saddled with a juvenile record, now-responsible citizens are blocked from joining the military, going to college and finding employment. They have cleaned up their lives, but their past prevents them from moving forward." [4]


The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Joe Haveman, R-Holland, was easily approved in the Michigan House and Senate before the Legislature’s recent adjournment.[1]

House Resolution No. 254.
A resolution to declare May 2012 as Criminal Consequence Awareness Month in the
state of Michigan.

Whereas, A criminal record can have a devastating impact on a person’s ability to earn a
livelihood and often is unable to be expunged; and

Whereas, Those who engage in criminal activity often fail to realize that there are often
unforeseen and very severe consequences to their actions; and

Whereas, There are also many collateral consequences as a result of engaging in criminal
behavior including loss or restriction of a professional license, ineligibility for public funds
including welfare benefits and student loans, loss of voting rights, ineligibility for jury duty, and
deportation for immigrants, including those who, while not U.S. citizens, hold permanent
resident status;[3]


Michigan’s new law gives judges the ability to expunge a person’s criminal record even if there are up to two additional minor offenses on it. “Minor offenses” are misdemeanors or ordinance violations for which the maximum permissible punishment does not exceed 90 days and/or $1,000 in fines, and the person was at the time of conviction not more than 21 years old.[2]

Before applying for an expungement under this law, one must wait at least 5 years from the date of sentencing or completion of confinement, whichever is later. Certain crimes, such as murder, rape, and traffic offenses are not eligible for expungement.[2]

The amendment is intended to help those who may have been convicted of a minor traffic or other minor offense when young and yet later is convicted of a misdemeanor or felony to still apply to have that later offense expunged. The law recognizes that a conviction can negatively affect one for a lifetime.[2]


Haveman says the new law will help people who made bad decisions at a young age and are facing barriers to college, employment or the military.[1]

"The national trend is shifting from treating juvenile offenders more harshly to putting an emphasis on rehabilitation, and this bill makes it easier for youth who have demonstrated change to clear their records," Haveman said. "This simply makes it easier for deserving youth to put their pasts behind them and get on with life and become productive members of society."[4]


STATE OF MICHIGAN
96TH LEGISLATURE
REGULAR SESSION OF 2012
Introduced by Reps. Haveman, Bumstead, Hooker, Heise, Kurtz, Genetski, Lipton, MacMaster, Wayne Schmidt, Opsommer, Foster, Pettalia, Muxlow, Shirkey, Lori and Jackson
ENROLLED HOUSE BILL No. 5600
AN ACT to amend 1939 PA 288, entitled “An act to revise and consolidate the statutes relating to certain aspects of the family division of circuit court, to the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the family division of circuit court and its judges and other officers, to the change of name of adults and children, and to the adoption of adults and children; to prescribe certain jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the family division of circuit court and its judges and other officers; to prescribe the manner and time within which certain actions and proceedings may be brought in the family division of the circuit court; to prescribe pleading, evidence, practice, and procedure in certain actions and proceedings in the family division of circuit court; to provide for appeals from certain actions in the family division of circuit court; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state departments, agencies, and officers; to provide for certain immunity from liability; and to provide remedies and penalties,” by amending section 18e of chapter XIIA (MCL 712A.18e), as amended by 1996 PA 257.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
CHAPTER XIIA
Sec. 18e. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who has been adjudicated of not more than 1 juvenile offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and not more than 3 juvenile offenses, of which not more than 1 may be a juvenile offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and who has no felony convictions may file an application with the adjudicating court or adjudicating courts for the entry of an order setting aside the adjudications. A person may have only 1 adjudication for an offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and not more than 2 adjudications for an offense that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult or if there is no adjudication for a felony if committed by an adult, not more than 3 adjudications for an offense that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult set aside under this section. Multiple adjudications arising out of a series of acts that were in a continuous time sequence of 12 hours or less and that displayed a single intent and goal constitute 1 offense provided that none of the adjudications constitute any of the following:
(a) An assaultive crime as that term is defined in subsection (7).
(b) An offense involving the use or possession of a weapon.
(c) An offense with a maximum penalty of 10 or more years imprisonment.
(2) A person shall not apply under this section to have set aside, and a judge shall not under this section set aside, any of the following:
(a) An adjudication for an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment.
(b) An adjudication for a traffic offense under the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to 257.923, or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to that act, that involves the operation of a vehicle and at the time of the violation is a felony or misdemeanor.
(c) A conviction under section 2d of this chapter. This subdivision does not prevent a person convicted under section 2d of this chapter from having that conviction set aside as otherwise provided by law.
(3) An application under this section shall not be filed until the expiration of 1 year following imposition of the disposition for the adjudication that the applicant seeks to set aside, or 1 year following completion of any term of detention for that adjudication, or when the person becomes 18 years of age, whichever occurs later.
(4) An application under this section is invalid unless it contains the following information and is signed under oath by the person whose adjudication is to be set aside:
(a) The full name and current address of the applicant.
(b) A certified record of the adjudication that is to be set aside.
(c) A statement that the applicant has not been adjudicated of a juvenile offense other than the juvenile offenses sought to be set aside as a result of this application.
(d) A statement that the applicant has not been convicted of any felony offense.
(e) A statement as to whether the applicant has previously filed an application to set aside this or any other adjudication and, if so, the disposition of the application.
(f) A statement as to whether the applicant has any other criminal charge pending against him or her in any court in the United States or in any other country.
(g) A consent to the use of the nonpublic record created under subsection (13), to the extent authorized by subsection (13).
(5) The applicant shall submit a copy of the application and 2 complete sets of fingerprints to the department of state police. The department of state police shall compare those fingerprints with the records of the department, including the nonpublic record created under subsection (13), and shall forward a complete set of fingerprints to the federal bureau of investigation for a comparison with the records available to that agency. The department of state police shall report to the court in which the application is filed the information contained in the department’s records with respect to any pending charges against the applicant, any record of adjudication or conviction of the applicant, and the setting aside of any adjudication or conviction of the applicant and shall report to the court any similar information obtained from the federal bureau of investigation. The court shall not act upon the application until the department of state police reports the information required by this subsection to the court.
(6) The copy of the application submitted to the department of state police under subsection (5) shall be accompanied by a fee of $25.00 payable to the state of Michigan. The department of state police shall use the fee to defray the expenses incurred in processing the application.
(7) A copy of the application shall be served upon the attorney general and, if applicable, upon the office of the prosecuting attorney who prosecuted the offense. The attorney general and the prosecuting attorney shall have an opportunity to contest the application. If the adjudication was for an offense that if committed by an adult would be an assaultive crime or serious misdemeanor, and if the name of the victim is known to the prosecuting attorney, the prosecuting attorney shall give the victim of that offense written notice of the application and forward a copy of the application to the victim under section 46a of the William Van Regenmorter crime victim’s rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.796a. The notice shall be sent by first-class mail to the victim’s last known address. The victim has the right to appear at any proceeding under this section concerning that adjudication and to make a written or oral statement. As used in this subsection:
(a) “Assaultive crime” means that term as defined in section 9a of chapter X of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 770.9a.
(b) “Serious misdemeanor” means that term as defined in section 61 of the William Van Regenmorter crime victim’s rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.781.
(c) “Victim” means that term as defined in section 31 of the William Van Regenmorter crime victim’s rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.781.
(8) Upon the hearing of the application, the court may require the filing of affidavits and the taking of proofs as it considers proper.
(9) Except as provided in subsection (10), if the court determines that the circumstances and behavior of the applicant from the date of the applicant’s adjudication to the filing of the application warrant setting aside the 1 adjudication for a juvenile offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and not more than 2 adjudications for a juvenile offense that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult or if there is no adjudication for a felony if committed by an adult, not more than 3 adjudications for an offense that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult and that setting aside the adjudication or adjudications is consistent with the public welfare, the court may enter an order setting aside the adjudication. Except as provided in subsection (10), the setting aside of an adjudication under this section is a privilege and conditional, and is not a right.
(10) Notwithstanding subsection (9), the court shall set aside the adjudication of a person who was adjudicated for an offense that if committed by an adult would be a violation or an attempted violation of section 413 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.413, if the person files an application with the court and otherwise meets the requirements of this section.
(11) Upon the entry of an order under this section, the applicant is considered not to have been previously adjudicated, except as provided in subsection (13) and as follows:
(a) The applicant is not entitled to the remission of any fine, costs, or other money paid as a consequence of an adjudication that is set aside.
(b) This section does not affect the right of the applicant to rely upon the adjudication to bar subsequent proceedings for the same offense.
(c) This section does not affect the right of a victim of an offense to prosecute or defend a civil action for damages.
(d) This section does not create a right to commence an action for damages for detention under the disposition that the applicant served before the adjudication is set aside under this section.
(12) Upon the entry of an order under this section, the court shall send a copy of the order to the arresting agency and the department of state police.
(13) The department of state police shall retain a nonpublic record of the order setting aside an adjudication for a juvenile offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and not more than 2 juvenile offenses that would be misdemeanors if committed by an adult or if there is no adjudication for a felony if committed by an adult, not more than 3 adjudications for an offense that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult and of the record of the arrest, fingerprints, adjudication, and disposition of the applicant in the case to which the order applies. Except as provided in subsection (14), this nonpublic record shall be made available only to a court of competent jurisdiction, an agency of the judicial branch of state government, a law enforcement agency, a prosecuting attorney, the attorney general, or the governor upon request and only for the following purposes:
(a) Consideration in a licensing function conducted by an agency of the judicial branch of state government.
(b) Consideration by a law enforcement agency if a person whose adjudication has been set aside applies for employment with the law enforcement agency.
(c) To show that a person who has filed an application to set aside an adjudication has previously had an adjudication set aside under this section.
(d) The court’s consideration in determining the sentence to be imposed upon conviction for a subsequent offense that is punishable as a felony or by imprisonment for more than 1 year.
(e) Consideration by the governor, if a person whose adjudication has been set aside applies for a pardon for another offense.
(14) A copy of the nonpublic record created under subsection (13) shall be provided to the person whose adjudication is set aside under this section upon payment of a fee determined and charged by the department of state police in the same manner as the fee prescribed in section 4 of the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.234.
(15) The nonpublic record maintained under subsection (13) is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.
(16) Except as provided in subsection (13), a person, other than the applicant, who knows or should have known that an adjudication was set aside under this section, who divulges, uses, or publishes information concerning an adjudication set aside under this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
This act is ordered to take immediate effect.
Clerk of the House of Representatives
Secretary of the Senate
Approved
Governor[5]



[source]
[1]
http://www.dailytribune.com/article/20121230/NEWS03/121239988/new-law-makes-it-easier-to-erase-juvenile-crimes

[2]
http://www.mwplegal.com/michigan-broadens-eligibility-for-expungement-of-criminal-convictions

[3]
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legislature.mi.gov%2Fdocuments%2F2011-2012%2Fresolutionadopted%2Fhouse%2Fpdf%2F2012-HAR-0254.PDF&ei=HpzhUOuKKKq80QG04IHIBA&usg=AFQjCNE-A6P2evFzKXOQf0P08j-xPWAqfA&sig2=P22yxbz5txKUIePus8V99A

[4]
http://www.gophouse.com/readarticle.asp?id=9347&District=90 contact Haveman at
http://www.gophouse.com/contact.asp?District=90

[5]
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billenrolled/House/htm/2012-HNB-5600.htm

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

FREE THE CROOK CHARGE THE PROSECUTOR

Good Morning Flint!,
By Terry Bankert 3/8/09
http://www.divorcelawguy.com

Full article at http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/

LET THE CROOK GO TO HOLD THE SYSTEM ACCOUNTABLE

If you had to make a choice between these two which is more important to you, fairness of the process or determination of guilt?

There's plenty of guilt to go around in the Ted Stevens case[6]

I think the difference between us an a third world dictator is the rule of law and the fairness of the judiciary.

PROSECUTORIAL ABUSE TIP OF THE ICEBERG?

It was enough to give even a hardened conservative a bleeding-heart sympathy for the accused. "Imagine what it's like for people who don't have any money," Andrew Lundquist, a former aide to Stevens and to Vice President Dick Cheney, said as he left the courtroom. [5]

THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WAS POLITICIZED UNDER BUSH, OBAMA IS EXPECTED TO RE PROFESSIONALIZE IT.

There is no way to put a good "spin" on what happened in regard to corruption allegations against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens. Heads should roll in the Justice Department as a result of its bungling of the case.[7]

This issue raises fundamental constitutional questions about the importance and political independence of the court. We should all be angry.

PROSECUTOR OR PERSECUTOR

A federal judge dismissed the ethics conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on Tuesday after taking the extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate whether the government lawyers who ran the Stevens case should themselves be prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing.[1]

THE IRONY OF IT ALL

The longest-serving Senate Republican had become an unlikely victim of the overreach of George W. Bush's Justice Department. [5]

IF HE IS GUILTY HE SHOULD NOT BE RE CHARGED, CAN HE BE RE CHARGED?

Stevens was convicted Oct. 27 of seven counts of failing to disclose gifts, including home renovations, on his Senate financial-disclosure forms. He lost his re-election bid days later.[4]

LET THE LITTLE FISH GO TO PUNISH THE WHALE

Either a corrupt politician is escaping punishment because of prosecutors' illegal zeal - or the government illegally persecuted a public servant. We may never know the full truth about allegations against Stevens.[7]

A LITTLE HARLEY ROUGH JUSTICE ROLLING DOWN THE HIGHWAY

The investigation into whether prosecutors broke the law in pursuing their case against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is being led by a Harley-riding attorney known for his low-key style and experience on both sides of criminal law.[2]


JUDGE SEETHING

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, speaking in a slow and deliberate manner that failed to conceal his anger, said that in 25 years on the bench, he had "never seen mishandling and misconduct like what I have seen" by the Justice Department prosecutors who tried the Stevens case.[1]
[Judge Sullivan]...announced that he was naming a special prosecutor to investigate whether government attorneys had broken the law by failing to ensure that the Alaska Republican got a fair trial.[4]

WE MUST HAVE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW

The Justice Department is conducting its own investigation, but Sullivan said it's moving too slowly and the allegations are too important to leave to an internal review.[2]

WHICH IS THE MORE IMPORTANT , THE SENATORS OR THE PROSECUTORS GUILT?

The unraveling of the case overshadowed the facts of a trial in which Stevens was shown to have accepted thousands of dollars in undisclosed gifts. After Sullivan dismissed the case, Stevens turned to his friends and held up a fist in victory as his wife and daughters broke into loud sobs. A couple of Stevens supporters broke into applause when Sullivan announced the criminal investigation.[2]

BAD PROSECUTORS, MAYBE THIS WAS WHAT SPAIN AND THE INQUISITION WAS LIKE!

Indeed, dismissing the case because prosecutors were bad is not the same thing as saying Stevens is good. Some of the most damning accusations during the trial -- his acceptance of furniture, a puppy, a stained-glass window, a statue of migrating salmon and a Shiatsu massage lounger -- were largely unrelated to the prosecutorial misdeeds. Also, Stevens did at least as much to hurt his cause as prosecutors did, including his combative appearance on the stand and his request for an expedited trial, without which he almost certainly would have been reelected. [5]

HE’S NOT A CROOK UNTIL CONVICTED

Just because a federal judge dismissed all charges Tuesday against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens doesn't mean he's not a crook. [6]

YOU HOLD YOUR CARDS CLOSE IN POKER NOT PROSECUTION

Judge Sullivan’s lacerating 14-minute speech, focusing on disclosures that prosecutors had improperly withheld evidence in the case, virtually guaranteed reverberations beyond the morning’s dismissal of the verdict that helped end Mr. Stevens’s Senate career. [1]

ONCE AGAIN THEY ARE SORRY FOR WHAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DID TO THIS COUNTRY.

Paul O'Brien, a federal prosecutor newly assigned to the case, apologized to the judge on behalf of the department.[2]

TIP OF THE ICEBERG

Stevens found that when the government starts down a path of disregard for the rule of law -- at Abu Ghraib, in the torture memos, in the mass firings of U.S. attorneys and at Gitmo -- ultimately even a powerful lawmaker is not immune. Stevens, rescued by a Democratic attorney general and new prosecutors who "deeply, deeply regret" what happened, pledged to push for legislation to reform prosecutions "when the dust settles." [5]

ETHICS OF THE PROSECUTION

The judge, who was named to the Federal District Court here by President Bill Clinton, delivered a broad warning about what he said was a "troubling tendency" he had observed among prosecutors to stretch the boundaries of ethics restrictions and conceal evidence to win cases. [1]

Withholding materials that could be helpful to criminal defendants has become a troubling Justice Department trend, Sullivan said, citing Stevens' case and that of a Guantánamo detainee who fought to have his medical records released to his lawyers.[4]

THE RULES MUST BE APPLIED FAIRLY

Recalling the Supreme Court description of a prosecution's proper role -- "not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done" -- he drew a link between the Stevens debacle and the Justice Department's most prominent recent abuse of power. The government's obligations to the accused, he said, apply whether it's "a public official, a private citizen or a Guantanamo Bay detainee." When the judge heard that Stevens's attorneys sent three letters about prosecutorial misconduct to former attorney general Michael Mukasey but received no response, he called it "shocking -- but not surprising." [5]

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

He named Henry F. Schuelke 3rd, a prominent Washington lawyer, to investigate six career Justice Department prosecutors, including the chief and deputy chief of the Public Integrity Section, an elite unit charged with dealing with official corruption, to see if they should face criminal charges.[1]

He said that he had asked a former military judge, Henry Schuelke III of Washington, to investigate the prosecutors for potential obstruction-of-justice charges.[4]

PROSECUTORS CAUSE SENATORS DEFEAT?

Only days after a jury last October found Mr. Stevens guilty on seven felony counts, he was narrowly defeated in his bid for re-election. Mr. Stevens had been the longest-serving Republican in the history of the Senate. [1]

GRUMPY SMILES

The smile Mr. Stevens displayed during Tuesday’s court session would have been unfamiliar to those who have followed him in the Senate, where he had a reputation as being dour and grumpy.[1]

COLLATERAL DAMAGE FOR JUSTICE?

In a brief statement, Mr. Stevens told the court that he had long maintained an unwavering faith in the judicial system. "But what some members of the prosecution team did nearly destroyed my faith," he said. "Their conduct had consequences for me that they will never realize and can never be reversed."[1]

IT WAS JUST A "Home Improvement".

Mr. Stevens was charged with failing to list on Senate disclosure forms some $250,000 worth of goods and services he received, mostly to transform a modest chalet he owned in Girdwood, Alaska, into a more splendid residence. [1]

SLOW MOVING LIARS!

During the five-week trial, prosecutors were repeatedly forced to acknowledge that they had failed to turn over information to defense lawyers as required. "Again and again, both during and after the trial in this case, the government was caught making false representations and not meeting its discovery obligations," Judge Sullivan said Tuesday. [1]

IT WAS JUST THE LAW OF THE LAND!

A 1963 Supreme Court ruling, Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to give a defendant all information they hold that might materially help the defense.[1]

THE NEW GUY SAYS WE ARE JUST GOING TO DO IT RIGHT

The Stevens case finally collapsed last Wednesday, more than five months after the verdict, when Eric H. Holder Jr., the recently installed attorney general, asked that all charges be dismissed because the new lawyers whom he had put in charge of the case had discovered yet another example of concealment.[1]

DID MR.ALLEN GET A DEAL?

During the trial, defense lawyers argued that Mr. Stevens had written a letter to Bill Allen, a onetime friend and the owner of a huge oil services company, asking for a bill for all the goods and services that Mr. Allen had provided. Mr. Allen, the chief prosecution witness, discredited that letter, testifying that he had been told by Bob Persons, an emissary from Mr. Stevens, to ignore the letter because the senator was just seeking to provide a false record to protect himself.[1]

PERSONS WHO?

But recently discovered notes showed that prosecutors who interviewed Mr. Allen on April 15, 2008, heard him say that he did not remember any such conversation with Mr. Persons.[1]

WHY DID HE CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY?

Mr. Stevens’s defense lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, told the court Tuesday that he had been blind sided by Mr. Allen’s testimony about the letter. "It was the most explosive testimony in the case," Mr. Sullivan said.[1]

A LITTLE WHITE LIE

Mr. Sullivan said that had he known of the prosecutors’ notes, he would have been able to argue that Mr. Allen’s account of the conversation with Mr. Persons was fabricated.[1]

PROSECUTOR ON PROSECUTOR

Paul O’Brien, chief of the new prosecution team that discovered the latest impropriety by the original prosecutors, said in court that "we deeply regret that this has occurred."[1]

THE FEDERAL 6 ABOUT TO TAKE A FALL

Judge Sullivan named six prosecutors as the subject of Mr. Schuelke’s investigation, including William M. Welch II, who heads the public integrity unit, and his deputy, Brenda K. Morris. Justice Department officials said the prosecutors remained at work on Tuesday.[1]
The other lawyers are Joseph W. Bottini, James A. Goeke, Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan. None of them were in the courtroom Tuesday except as presences to be repeatedly flayed by the judge and Brendan Sullivan.[1]

Biographical sketches of six federal prosecutors under investigation for mishandling the trial of former Sen. Ted Stevens.[3]

_BRENDA MORRIS: A longtime prosecutor with the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, Morris now serves as its principal deputy. She helped supervise the investigation into disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and has prosecuted corruption cases around the country. She teaches corruption investigations within the Justice Department and is a professor at Georgetown Law School. A graduate of Howard University law school, she served as the lead attorney in the Stevens trial, giving the government's opening statement and cross-examining Stevens.[3]

_NICHOLAS MARSH: One of two public integrity trial attorneys on the case, Marsh handled much of the courtroom work during the trials of Alaska lawmakers caught up in the scandal. He has been part of numerous other public corruption investigations, including one involving a scheme in Mississippi to defraud a $400 million fen-phen settlement fund. An FBI whistleblower accused Marsh of intentionally withholding evidence from Stevens and sending a witness back to Alaska during trial to prevent potentially damaging testimony. The prosecution team denies those accusations.[3]

_JOSEPH BOTTINI: An assistant U.S. attorney in Alaska, Bottini was a key figure in the Stevens case. He questioned the government's star witness, Bill Allen, and delivered the second half of the government's closing argument. Much of Allen's testimony had been discredited. The contempt investigation will look into whether prosecutors knew there was evidence of inconsistencies in Allen's statements but concealed it. Bottini graduated from California Western School of Law.[3]

_WILLIAM WELCH: The chief of the Public Integrity Section, Welch supervised the Stevens case but did not participate in the trial. He has supervised every major public corruption case brought by the department in the last several years. A former prosecutor in Springfield, Mass., Welch prosecuted former veterans hospital nurse Kristen Gilbert for killing four patients by injecting them with a heart stimulant. A graduate of Northwestern University Law School, Welch has been mentioned as a possible candidate for the U.S. attorney job in Massachusetts.[3]

_EDWARD SULLIVAN: The other public integrity trial attorney in the case, Sullivan has been part of the trial team that won convictions of several Alaska lawmakers caught up in the corruption scandal. He played a mostly behind-the-scenes role in the Stevens trial and his role in preparing the mishandling of evidence is unclear.[3]

_JAMES GOEKE: An assistant U.S. attorney in Alaska, Goeke also had a largely behind-the-scenes role in the Stevens trial. He has been a key figure in the prosecution of other politicians wrapped up in the Alaska corruption scandal.[3]

THE ECHO OF GEORGE BUSH

Judge Sullivan also criticized Michael B. Mukasey, the last attorney general in the Bush administration, saying it was shocking that he had failed to respond to letters from the defense team complaining about the Stevens prosecution. Mr. Mukasey’s office would not comment. [1]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICS

Judge Sullivan previously served on the District of Columbia Superior Court, the equivalent of a state court, to which he was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. [1]

JUDGE SULLIVAN THE FEDERAL COURT AND THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH

Like other judges on the Federal District Court in the nation’s capital, he has ruled on cases involving the rights of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and other issues of federal policy. He is now hearing a case that he will decide without a jury: the contention of animal rights advocates that the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus mistreats its elephants.[1]

PROSECUTORS MAY BE PROSECUTED

Michael Madigan, an experienced former prosecutor with the Orrick law firm in Washington, said Judge Sullivan’s decision to name his own prosecutor was highly unusual but was explicitly provided for in the rules of federal procedure. Under the rules, Mr. Madigan said, a judge may choose his own prosecutor for contempt investigations.[1]
Mr. Madigan said Mr. Schuelke would "operate under the authority of the court."[1]
"He will then recommend to the court whether to seek criminal contempt charges," Mr. Madigan said.[1]

"You'd think there would be jubilation, that we'd be high-fiving each other around the office," Brendan Sullivan, attorney for the fallen senator, said of the moment two weeks ago when he learned of the prosecutorial misconduct that would lead the government to drop the case against his client. "My reaction was sick; I was sick in my stomach," he said. "It was revulsion, revulsion turned to anger. . . . I was in a silent rage." [5]

Stevens, whose 40 years in the Senate made him the longest-serving Republican in the body's history before he was convicted, spoke briefly at the hearing.[4]
In the end, a form of rough justice triumphed in the case. It was a marginal prosecution to start with -- accusations of penny-ante corruption and ethics violations -- and it ended with a political, rather than a legal, punishment: Stevens keeps a clean criminal record, but loses his Senate seat. The judge has dismissed the case, but the court of public opinion is unlikely to be as generous.[5]

Setting aside the testimony tainted by prosecutorial misconduct, trial transcripts paint him as a man who lived lavishly off gifts from his political backers while concealing his allegiance to them. The loss of his long-held Senate seat is a fitting punishment, even if a court-approved sentence would have been more satisfying.[6]

Posted here by Terry Bankert
http://www.flintdivorce.com/

You are invited to continue these discussions on my face book. http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Bankert/645845362

sources:
[1]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/politics/08stevens.html?bl&ex=1239336000&en=75a8bd1abce1493a&ei=5087%0A

[2]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUP1B2Zw_4dNuu7VoIE48DDqE4dAD97E4S3G0

[3]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jwwUitG44VN1O-xnL--GqxTWHWyQD97E4SC01

[4]
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/989564.html
[5]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040703649.html?hpid=topnews

[6]
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-stevens8-2009apr08,0,191069.story

[7]
http://www.messengernews.net/page/content.detail/id/514253.html

Sphere: Related Content