Minnesota Supremes Grill Coleman Lawyer On Lack Of Evidence

[babylonsister]

Minnesota Supremes Grill Coleman Lawyer On Lack Of Evidence
By Eric Kleefeld - June 1, 2009, 12:03PM


The oral arguments just finished at the Minnesota Supreme Court, in Norm Coleman's appeal of his defeat at the election trial, with Coleman's lead attorney Joe Friedberg arguing that serious constitutional issues mean the trial court's legal conclusions should be overturned and more previously-rejected absentee ballots from Coleman's selected list put into the count. Franken's side obviously argued differently. For this post, let's focus on the Coleman side.

It's always a tricky business to read clues into the questions that judges ask the lawyers during these proceedings -- despite some basic assumptions about how this works, judges can surprise you. But if we just go by the basic assumptions, it didn't look good for Coleman, with the judges asking pointed questions of Friedberg that at certain points amounted to ridicule of him for putting on a shoddy case.

At one point, Justice Christopher Dietzen went over Team Coleman's written offers of proof -- filings of proposed evidence that an attorney makes when a trial court won't admit it as official evidence, but he wants to preserve it for future appeals. "I've never seen an offer of proof like this," said Dietzen, complaining that the offers didn't actually identify specific potential witnesses or what their presumed evidence would have been been -- only continued arguments that "a substantial number" of ballots exist. Dietzen added that "the rules of evidence the rules of civil procedure apply. Now why is this offer of proof not inadequate, in that we don't have admissible evidence that can show whether you've met your burden?"

It should be noted that Dietzen was appointed by Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and came under blogosphere criticism for having donated in previous years to Norm Coleman's campaign. I should add, though, that in all the time I've watched this case I've never seen any evidence of improper judicial partiality on Dietzen's part, regardless of whom he presumably voted for on Election Day.

more...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/minnesota-supremes-grill-coleman-lawyer-on-lack-of-evidence.php

[onehandle]

1. "Evidence? 'Because I said so' doesn't cut it?" nt

[pleah]

2. K&R Thanks, I missed the live coverage. n/t

[madrchsod]

3. ouch....that had to hurt!

poor old joey was way over his head....

they must have hired him on the basis of his low billing hours not his intellect

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. they should have had evidence in their offer of proof.

That is a rare motion. We have a diff name for that in Texas - can't remember.
Usually those hearings with extra evidence are totally irrelevant and would not make a diff on appeal.

[DCKit]

6. Speaking of evidence....

Why has no one even been sanctioned after they presented falsified copies of ballots as evidence in a prior hearing? The whole Coleman team should be under investigation.

[LynneSin]

5. It should be noted that Dietzen was appointed by Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty (& donated to Coleman)

So it's bullshit anyone says that this court is somehow balanced in Franken's favor!