Stevens asks for new trial in Alaska

[DogPoundPup]

Source: Anchorage Daily News

Defense lawyers today cited 17 reasons that U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens' monthlong trial was unfair, flawed or prejudiced against him and asked that he be tried anew, this time in Alaska.

The motion for a new trial, filed this afternoon in Washington, D.C., was accompanied by a separate motion asking the judge in the case to overrule the jury and direct an acquittal, voiding the verdict in which Stevens was convicted Oct. 27 of seven counts of failure to disclose gifts and other benefits.

Stevens' lawyers also renewed a pretrial motion to dismiss six of the seven counts as duplications of the first. They also asked the judge to allow them to file some exhibits under seal because the exhibits refer to personal information about jurors and the ongoing investigation by the government into political corruption Alaska.

Under an earlier schedule set by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, the government has until Jan. 9 to respond to post-trial motions. A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 25.

Read more: http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/story/613036.html

[RoyGBiv]

1. What's that, Ted?

You want an activist court, one that overrules democratically arrived at decisions, one that tinkers with the law to provide a decision a "narrow" interest wants?

What's wrong, Ted? Aren't your conservative values enough anymore?

You make the baby Jesus cry, Ted. He dislikes you intensely.

And I have it on good authority that kittens and puppies pee on your shoes upon first meeting.

[mitchum]

2. Old man, you will die in prison

[scytherius]

3. This comes up in all trials and JUST so ya know . . . (a pet peeve)

One of my pet peeves, being a retired atty and judge, is that newspapers don't use people who know anything about the law to report standard procedural issues. We often read about how SCOTUS upheld this or that when, in fact, what they did is to just refuse to hear the appeal. While it, obviously, doesn't change the lower court ruling, it is a far cry from SCOTUS upholding it. We are seeing a lot of this in that loony "Obama is a citizen from Mars" series of cases.

In any event, and this is just an fyi, if a Defendant fails to request a new trial on certain issues, he is then precluded from bringing those issues up on appeal. The reason behind that is that it is encouraged that the trial court be allowed to "fix" any errors it may have committed. So, if Stevens failed to request a new trial on the issues cited, he would then not be able to appeal those issues to the Alaska Court of Appeals. These rules vary a little from state to state and at the Fed level, but much of what is reported as a "big deal" is nothing more than a procedural requirement and is often something that makes sure the attorney isn't sued later for malpractice.

Just a Crim Pro 101 for everyone. =)

[rasputin1952]

5. Thankis for the heads up and tutorial...just about everyone doesn't understand

the processes of Law and the legal minefilds that must be traversed. We have a tendancy to see things as "right or wrong", and make a stand on that foundation.

A for instance, OJ...when the jury came back w/innocent (the Brown/Goldman trial), there was nothing else to be said in the matter...I didn't like it, I thought it was atrocious, but I also know the DA's Office botched the case. Point is, Simpson could have walked out and admitted to the crime, and still be free. Today's sentencing upheld the conclusion of the jury, Simpson was guilty on all counts. There will be Appeals, but at this point, he's heading to prison. If, by some very strange turn of events, he gets his convictions overturned, (highly unlikely as the evidence is profoundly well put together), it will be through the Law, and not because he is Simpson, black, arrogant, remorseful or anything else...it will simply be a point(s) of Law.

[RoyGBiv]

7. Wow ...

That is one of the most informative posts I think I have ever seen on DU.

I knew some of this (the Obama as Mars Alien part), but that puts many things into perspective.

Thank you for that.

[stlsaxman]

8. why- thank you, Y'ahnah!

very informative indeed!

:fistbump:

[acmavm]

10. Yep, one of the speakers who came to one of my classes was an attorney

that said before, during, and after a trial it's mandatory that everything that can be appealed be appealed, everything that can be objected to be objected to, every judgement that could be ruled from the bench (directed verdict, etc.) be asked for. Because once the trial is over, the opportunity is gone. There's only TWO things that can happen. One, your request is granted. Two, it is denied. But at least every base was covered.

[DebbieCDC]

4. Old bastards don't look good in prison orange

or green or whatever color it will be where he's headed.

Bye-bye Teddy.

[Lasher]

9. Junior will pardon him.

He won't serve a single day in jail.

[BootinUp]

6. Go fish. nt