So Stephen's skates, an intentional fucking to the citizens of Alaska by DOJ prosecutors.

[lonestarnot]

Judge Excludes Evidence in Alaska Senator’s Trial

WASHINGTON — The federal judge presiding over the corruption trial of Senator Ted Stevens dealt a sharp blow to the prosecution on Wednesday by excluding some evidence because he said Justice Department prosecutors used documents that they knew contained lies.


The judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court, declined to declare a mistrial or dismiss any of the seven felony counts, as had been urged by Mr. Stevens’s lawyers. But Judge


Sullivan delivered a severe scolding to the prosecution and said he would bar the government from using two categories of evidence central to its case.

Perhaps more important, he said he would tell the jury on Thursday that he was excluding some of the prosecution’s evidence because “the government presented evidence the government knew was not true,” an instruction that is likely to undermine the credibility of the prosecution

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/washington/09stevens.html

By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: October 8, 2008
WASHINGTON — The federal judge presiding over the corruption trial of Senator Ted Stevens dealt a sharp blow to the prosecution on Wednesday by excluding some evidence because he said Justice Department prosecutors used documents that they knew contained lies.

Stevens’s Lawyer Challenges Witness (October 8, 2008)
Senator Warned a Friend That Jail Was a Risk (October 7, 2008)
U.S. v. Stevens: Indictment and Trial Exhibits
The judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court, declined to declare a mistrial or dismiss any of the seven felony counts, as had been urged by Mr. Stevens’s lawyers. But Judge Sullivan delivered a severe scolding to the prosecution and said he would bar the government from using two categories of evidence central to its case.

[Redbear]

1. I still think Stevens won't skate

The evidence they did get in is still pretty damning.

[lonestarnot]

2. It'll be another OJ. When a judge tells a jury the prosecution lied about some of the evidence, why

would they believe ANY of it?

[napi21]

3. The judge isn't dismissing the case! He reprimanded the

prosecution for something they did wrong, as well they should have! The prosecutors knew better and shouldn't have done it!

I could be wrong, but from all I know of this case, the prosecution still has a good case. To make it very simple, most cases are decided on the reasonable man theory. If a reasonable man had someone raise his house and add a complete new level to it underneath the old one, how much do you THINK it would cost you? If what Stevens paid was significantly LESS then, case closed!