• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Litigators, It's Your Day! | Main | We're Still Insulted »

August 31, 2007


Daniel Quackenbush

Sorry, here's the correct link to the top ten worst prosecutors:

Daniel Quackenbush

Your scenario is plausible, if any of the following prosecutors are any indication (top 10 worst prosecutors):


Or, maybe, just maybe, you have a sitting DC Superior Court Judge and former federal prosecutor who wanted to "shade the truth" to make her actions more palatable to the jury-Gosh! Federal prosecutors who mislead juries? Who want to shade the truth? Who want to state things that are not in evidence as fact?


Fortunately, when presented with the facts of an issue, juries are pretty good at seeing through prevarications by witnesses, and reaching the right result. Even when, unfortunately, such prevaricating witness happens to be a DC Superior Court judge.

Daniel Quackenbush

Or--We may have another jury who is unwilling to hold the police accountable because of the "thin blue line." Jurors usually do give the testimony of police officer's greater weight than most other witnesses.


I think the fact that the jury so quickly found in favor of the two detectives, after a sitting Superior Court judge, and star government witness, Jennifer Anderson, testified for 6 hours in the case, is a DAMNING INDICTMENT of Jennifer Anderson's credibility, and indeed, defense attorneys in this case actually implied in the closing statements that Anderson was lying on the witness stand. For a former Homicide Chief in the U.S. Attorney's Office (Schertler) and a former DOJ lawyer in the Public Integrity Section (Weingarten) to make such statements about a sitting D.C. Superior Court Judge is nothing short of extraordinary.

But it must be said that if Anderson was self-righteously "shading the truth" in order to make her actions look more ethical and reasonable to the jury at the expense of these two detectives' lives and careers, then it should be serious enough to get the DOJ's Office of Public Integrity to take a look at Anderson's testimony to see if she WAS in fact consciously acting to mislead the jury.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad