Craig never should have been charged. One count was dismissed and one count quickly rejected by a jury. Sad!
From the Government's closing:
“No matter how many great things he has done in this country, no one is above the law in this country,” he went on. “The truth matters. Facts matter. And now that you have heard the evidence, it is time for you to hold this man accountable for that scheme, and that truth, and find him guilty as charged.”
And from the defense:
In the defense’s closing, Craig attorney William J. Murphy implored jurors to scrutinize the law and a 2013 letter from Craig to the Justice Department explaining to investigators that Craig had his own reasons to speak to the Times, namely to defend himself, his firm’s and his colleagues’ work, and that he was not paid for his media outreach.
Government allegations that Craig was part of Ukraine’s media rollout of the report relied on the words of a “congenital liar,” Murphy said, naming Manafort deputy Rick Gates, who testified and awaits sentencing after cooperating in Mueller’s probe and as a witness against Craig and Manafort.
Murphy said Craig was truthful in saying that in responding to the Times, Craig did not inform or consult with Ukraine or act as its agent.
Murphy spoke of the reputation Craig had built over 50 years and urged jurors to “salvage” it for him, saying, “We ask you to apply the evidence with the law and find him not guilty and prevent this prosecution from sounding a horrible, false note at the end of an incredible career of honor, service and integrity.”
There really should be consequences when the Government loses at trial.
17 comments:
What consequences would you suggest? We should be working to create a system in which prosecutors are more concerned with doing justice and less concerned with winning. I can't think of any consequences that would further that goal.
Prevailing party fees to acquitted defendants in "exceptional cases." Create a mechanism after acquittal where the defense can move for fees on the spot. Ask the jury to go back into the jury room and weigh a new standard on the same facts (preponderance maybe?). If the government can't meet the second, lower, standard, prevailing party fees are awarded. Discharge the jury and give the defense 30 days to file its fees statement and fee expert report.
Budgets matter to politicians. And the District Attorney and State Attorney are both, ultimately, politicians.
It would also make for an opportunity for the defendant to be made whole (that's doing justice).
Wow! SO much outrage because a rich person accused of a white collar offense gets acquitted! Where's the outrage when innocent poor people get wrongly convicted or when people of color get singled out for over prosecution?
DOM, there are mechanisms already in place. In federal court, prosecutions require indictment by a grand jury. Judges have authority to dismiss indictments and grant Rule 29 motions. A jury of your peers can acquit.
What?
"One count was dismissed and one quickly rejected by a jury."
That's how our justice system works.
Being acquitted (even quickly) doesn't equal "never should have been charged."
It seems like you are suggesting that the government only seek prosecution on cases where a conviction is guaranteed.
And having "consequences" would only further chill prosecution of white collar offenses or of rich people. (I don't recall any call for "consequences" for drug or felon in possession cases being brought to federal court when they can easily be tried in state court).
Wow! I can see the landscape changing awful fast. Defense attorneys will have a stake in the outcome of a case. Think about it. you get hired on a very very weak case with an almost indigent client who you would ordinality not take. But you know if you push it to trial or force a dismissal, you will get paid $$$$$$$$$$$. Under the current framework, you take the case for $500 and take pre trial diversion. And what about arrests that result in "no actions" or ultimate nolle process. Does the defendant get er-imbursed? You can quickly see the dangers of instituting this kind of system.
Dude, that's called PI, it actually helps make the world a safer place.
@1:45, I am the author of 5:06. And yes, what you are talking about it exactly what I would expect, and like to see. Under this scenario, indigent clients would have an opportunity to be represented by private counsel. Is that such a bad thing?
@11:43, you say "It seems like you are suggesting that the government only seek prosecution on cases where a conviction is guaranteed." Not quite, but let's assume that's what I mean. What's wrong with that? Do you think its ok for the government to prosecute people that its not sure can be convicted? I don't.
9:01
Wow.
Yes, under our system of justice, which has worked well for a couple of hundred years, the state can seek prosecution in cases where a grand jury has found probable cause to charge an individual. If the crucible of a jury trial determines that there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the person gets acquitted.
Fear of "consequences" for prosecuting rich and power people is how we end up with a child molester getting a slap on the wrist and being able to be on work release.
Your other point doesn't even merit a response.
@9:15 - no, our system does not work particularly well. In what we pretend to be a "free country", we have more prisoners than any other country in the world, and we have have defendants taking plea deals on charges they don't believe they are guilty of because the cost of "winning" is too high to be worth fighting (i.e admitting guilt under duress of the power of the state).
also @9:15
As for Epstein, it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.
Take a look at your great system:
https://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/#
The ills with our justice system are not because the standard for brining prosecutions is probable cause. In fact, most of the problems stem from a disparity in treatment based mostly on money and power. What is being proposed would just make that disparity even greater.
And what is the percentage of rich, powerful white men in those overcrowded prisons? How many rich, powerful white men enter pleas to crimes they haven't committed? How many rich, powerful white men have been helped by the innocence project?
Now, you want to make it more prohibitive to even bring charges against those rich, powerful white men for fear of "consequences"? Man, Please!
Just by numbers, there really aren't that many rich white men compared to the general population, depending on how you describe rich. For me, the cutoff is having 20 million plus net worth. There just aren't that many. If you are talking billionaires, many many fewer. So please, be specific.
Right now, if you are poor and brown, and you are accused of some BS that you didn't do, your checks on power are the mercy of the prosecutor (and s/he may have none), and a wildly overworked and under resourced public defender (I'm talking mostly about state court).
If you could get fees in a case like that, private counsel might be willing to take on your defense and you would be in a position to have a genuinely adversarial proceeding in which a poor man might be able to compete.
Fees in exceptional cases where the government can't even prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence would help the poor and under-served more than the rich (the rich don't need the fees back in order to defend themselves). Yes, it might create a personal injury/ADA litigation circus, but it might also be a worthy experiment.
Or....bad attorneys might encourage the d to go to trial in hopes of a big ng and hit....only to say good luck when the happier drops after the guilty verdict.
1:17 of course turns this around on defense lawyers. Check the Federal Reporter and compare the number of defense misconduct cases vs prosecutorial misconduct.
That issue doesn't go up. Look at civil defense misconduct. What you are suggesting I like asking an intern to bring you all the federal appeallate cases overturning a jury acquittal.
Post a Comment