Brown Trial, Part IV

[LPC]

Scoop scoops again, as she finally gets in touch with someone at the "Forseti Group," who denies everything knowing David Quinn, or having any connection to the U.S. Marshals Service.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs ... 20367/1001

[.]

And the first (idiotic) comment on the article is by Kazoo.

[grixit]

Hmm, ticking off both the Justice Department and a security company. Someone likes to live on the edge.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

And the first (idiotic) comment on the article is by Kazoo.

"idiotic" and "comment" are redundant when Kazoo is the author.

[Dr. Caligari]

Hmm, ticking off both the Justice Department and a security company. Someone likes to live on the edge.

Can you say, "obstruction of justice," boys and girls?
I knew you could!

[notorial dissent]

Well, I should say that the defense team’s credibility took a hit on this, and that they should be refiling their motion sans the fiction very shortly and hoping the judge doesn’t decide to ask some very embarrassing questions.

I would also suspect that the "person" who contacted them is now going to be, or certainly should be, the subject of some serious interest as the good Dr points out. I'm sure this will grow in interest as the bits start floating to the surface.

[Gregg]

I dunno, I almost want to agree with Wes on this one. The defense was kind of in a rough spot, and had to try to introduce it, if for no other reason than if Ed and Elaine had found out about by other means it could have been a serious issue. Whether it was credible or not is something for the prosecution to establish.
Or maybe not. I do want to see if the court makes some effort to find out who lives at the phone number the call came from. My 1,000:1 bet on that is Jose Gonzales or maybe Joe Haas, but I wouldn't be surprised to find it's someone active on some "live free or die" sovrun site. It's gonna be a lot of fun!

and it gives Demo another reason to delay the book!

[.]

Luuuucy, somebody's got some serious 'splainin' to do.

There's just nothing like derivative acts and the subsequent trial of them that pile many more tens of years of federal prison time for multiple people on top of the original, fairly minimal 10 or so total years for E&E.

Over 100 extra years between E&E and the fab four, and perhaps the count isn't yet final.

TP/UCC/'Sovrun' moron theater at its best.

[notorial dissent]

I agree that the defense had an obligation to present any evidence or information that might help their case, and I applaud them for that, BUT, they also had a duty not only to their clients, but to the court to vet that information a little more thoroughly than making a phone call to an unidentified individual who sold them a bill of goods before going out on a limb and getting it cut out from under them, as has happened. So, by not doing sufficient research they have put themselves and their clients in a bad/worse light, and inadvertently helped perpetrate a fraud on the court.

I agree that it probably was one of the local loonies or the free Ed crowd, but that doesn't excuse not having checked further.

[wserra]

they also had a duty not only to their clients, but to the court to vet that information a little more thoroughly

I agree that defense counsel had a duty to investigate to a greater degree than appears in the filed papers, a duty more to their clients than to the Court. For all anyone here knows, they did exactly that. For all anyone here knows, when they did that, they found that the story smelled like week-old fish - but found no smoking gun proving it false to the extent where presenting it to the Court would be an act of bad faith. What do they do? Well, there are two choices: (1) do nothing, in effect deciding for their never-to-be-released clients that there is nothing to a set of facts which, if credited, would be a serious due process violation quite possibly resulting in a new trial; or (2) present it to the Court.

Who here would choose (1)?

[Imalawman]

they also had a duty not only to their clients, but to the court to vet that information a little more thoroughly

I agree that defense counsel had a duty to investigate to a greater degree than appears in the filed papers, a duty more to their clients than to the Court. For all anyone here knows, they did exactly that. For all anyone here knows, when they did that, they found that the story smelled like week-old fish - but found no smoking gun proving it false to the extent where presenting it to the Court would be an act of bad faith. What do they do? Well, there are two choices: (1) do nothing, in effect deciding for their never-to-be-released clients that there is nothing to a set of facts which, if credited, would be a serious due process violation quite possibly resulting in a new trial; or (2) present it to the Court.

Who here would choose (1)?

Agreed. There was no winning here for defense counsel. But I don't think they presented it to the court as if there was some concrete evidence that the story was true, but rather they simply presented the issue to the court. They had a time deadline and let's not forget that the DOJ couldn't provide the concrete evidence shooting it down right away either. The best they could do was say, "we've never heard of 'em and we're looking into it". It took all of us some time to dig through everything and come up with the answer - so let's not bash the defense counsel too much here.

[notorial dissent]

Wes, your point is well taken, however, there is no question that this turkey is going where it is going, so it would not have hurt them to have held back a day or two, checked to make sure they weren’t going to get egg all over their faces, and that there really was some substance to all this, and then amend whatever nonsense they have currently filed with the court, and since we all know the filing will look like a crazy quilt before they are done it was just plain rash on their part. They could have waited a bit, not made fools of themselves, and still done something if it had panned out.

[Dezcad]

Hearing is rescheduled from today until Monday.

07/23/2009 NOTICE OF TELEPHONE HEARING - RESCHEDULED as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown: Telephone Conference reset for 7/27/2009 11:00 AM (from 7/24/09) before Judge George Z. Singal. The U S Attorney's Office will be initiating the call. (dae) (Entered: 07/23/2009)

[LPC]

I agree that defense counsel had a duty to investigate to a greater degree than appears in the filed papers, a duty more to their clients than to the Court. For all anyone here knows, they did exactly that. For all anyone here knows, when they did that, they found that the story smelled like week-old fish - but found no smoking gun proving it false to the extent where presenting it to the Court would be an act of bad faith. What do they do? Well, there are two choices: (1) do nothing, in effect deciding for their never-to-be-released clients that there is nothing to a set of facts which, if credited, would be a serious due process violation quite possibly resulting in a new trial; or (2) present it to the Court.

Who here would choose (1)?

I might, although I'm not sure it's counsel's choice.

I would not want to make the presentation to the court for three reasons:

1. There are grounds to believe that the information is false (as previously discussed).

2. I'm not sure that a new trial will follow, because the new information, even if suggesting a serious due process violation, does not seem to be material to the charges for which the defendants were convicted.

3. Even if a new trial is granted and the new information is presented at that trial, I have no reason to believe that it will produce a different result.

So we're looking at a possibly painful waste of time that will not do the defendants any good and could be a distraction from more important issues.

And so if I were defense counsel I might recommend to my clients to do nothing.

But if the clients say no, I want to grasp at straws and I want you to file a motion, then I agree that counsel has no choice because the information received is not so clearly false as to represent a breach of ethics.

And I assume that actual counsel had those discussions with their clients.

Which means that I'm probably coming down on the same side as Wes, but in a more convoluted way.

[grixit]

they also had a duty not only to their clients, but to the court to vet that information a little more thoroughly

I agree that defense counsel had a duty to investigate to a greater degree than appears in the filed papers, a duty more to their clients than to the Court. For all anyone here knows, they did exactly that. For all anyone here knows, when they did that, they found that the story smelled like week-old fish - but found no smoking gun proving it false to the extent where presenting it to the Court would be an act of bad faith. What do they do? Well, there are two choices: (1) do nothing, in effect deciding for their never-to-be-released clients that there is nothing to a set of facts which, if credited, would be a serious due process violation quite possibly resulting in a new trial; or (2) present it to the Court.

Who here would choose (1)?

3) present it to the court in camera, and let a DA investigator make the appropriate phone calls.

[Quixote]

3) present it to the court in camera, and let a DA investigator make the appropriate phone calls.

4) Present it to the court on camera and let the media make the appropriate phone calls.

[wserra]

3) present it to the court in camera, and let a DA investigator make the appropriate phone calls.

I'm not sure I understand.

"In camera" means a private court inspection of material that should not necessarily be disclosed to one or both parties, so that the court can decide whether it should be disclosed. Disputed determinations of privilege, for example, are frequently decided in camera. Nothing here is appropriate to present in camera, and I doubt that the Court would be willing to look at material like this in the absence of either party. And, if the Court did make an in camera inspection - then what? The Court is hardly going to decide a motion for a new trial (for example) ex parte.

And, if by "DA investigator" you mean someone working for the government - well, defense counsel isn't going to trust that, nor should they. The only solution I see is for each side to present what they know to the Court, and the Court decides what if anything to do.

[LPC]

The only solution I see is for each side to present what they know to the Court, and the Court decides what if anything to do.

I had similar thoughts when someone (Scoop? I'm too lazy to backtrack) suggested that the court should "investigate."

Courts don't investigate. Courts adjudicate.

The best that the defense could hope for is an order for discovery. After that, each side would have to present what it has, and then the court would decide what action was warranted.

Which is one of the reasons I have such a dim view of the defendant's motions. Allegations in a motion are all very nice, but at some point the defendants are going to have to face a hearing at which they will need to produce a witness who can testify to some relevant facts with some credibility.

Telling the court that you got a telephone call from someone who says that his name is "David Quinn" and that he works for the "Forseti Group" might get you a hearing, but what good does that do if you can't ever produce any witness named "David Quinn"?

(Let me say once again that one of the reasons that I like the "Law and Order" television show is that the lawyers actually talk about things like admissible evidence and how to prove particular facts. Not everything is accurate or realistic, but it's more like what lawyers do in real life than what most shows present.)

[webhick]

(Let me say once again that one of the reasons that I like the "Law and Order" television show is that the lawyers actually talk about things like admissible evidence and how to prove particular facts. Not everything is accurate or realistic, but it's more like what lawyers do in real life than what most shows present.)

I can't remember... do they have that discussion before or after Jack eats his Wheaties and gets a ham sandwich indicted?

[Demosthenes]

07/27/2009 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George Z. Singal: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown held on 7/27/2009. ORAL Order: With respect to Defendants Motions # 176 and # 177, The government shall file, ex parte and in camera, within 2 weeks of today an affidavit with the information requested on the record at the conference regarding the confidential informant in the case. By agreement of the defendants, there shall be no replies filed on the motions #176 and # 177. SO ORDERED by Judge George Z. Singal (Govt Atty: Arnold Huftalen, Terry Ollila) (Defts Atty: Bjorn Lange, Mike Iacopino)(Total Hearing Time: 40 mins) (cmp) (Entered: 07/27/2009)