• 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

« Covington Adds Another Antitrust Partner from DOJ | Main | D.C. Court Whittles Down Discrimination Case Against Covington »

September 10, 2009


G. Bruce

Ted Stevens verdict may have been `Tainted' by Prosecution Failures, but that fails to explain why Stevens was not re-prosecuted in a proper manner. By most accounts, a new and proper conviction was entirely within the realm of feasibility. There was an abundance of evidence against Stevens, which seriously undermined any evidence to the contrary. The evidence is unmistakable as to the illegal benefits Stevens received. The central issue was whether Stevens 'knew' or "should have known" about those benefits. Stephens himself was heard to admit knowledge of the benefits, although he also was heard to deny such knowledge. The botched prosecution should NOT have precluded re-prosecution.

Mike McCartney

They should also comply with the new ABA Formal Opinion 09-454 July 8, 2009, titled, Prosecutor’s Duty to Disclose Evidence and Information Favorable to the Defense, which outlines obligations under Rule 3.8(d) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad