• 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

« Morning Wrap | Main | Bouknight Rejoins Steptoe »

October 02, 2008



It's hard to tell from the facts before us what should be done.

The key question to my mind is whether Stevens' defense will be compromised.

Assuming that they're allowed a sufficient delay to follow up, other than simply to punish the government what's the rationale for dismissal?


odd how the judge and the defense counsel have the same last name.


Rules are Rules

Suppression of evidence is prosecutorial abuse, especially from what I hear that this evidence contradicts what the Star Witness for the Prosecution has already said under oath.

Me thinks MISTRIAL has to be the decision. I mean even a low level prosecutor of dog-napping cases would see the Star Witness lied under oath, and that shreds their case.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad