Judge allows government to continue to seek death penalty against Zacarias Moussaoui

Part of me thinks this is to bad. If he got life and was placed in general population (although, he'd most likely be put in protective custody), he'd be ended years sooner than if he were to receive a government death warrant.

Is the final punishment going to be decided by the Judge.

Is the jury recommendation, simply that, a recommendation?

This judge is acting as tho the man didn't plead GUILTY.

"Can we get rid of the government lawyer that open this can of worms in the first place?"

Boy, she sure did look unhappy today running from the press. CNN said she didn't speak today because she didn't have her own lawyer yet. That's just what we need, for every lawyer in court to have their own lawyer... and heck, maybe they should lawyers too.

This case should be fairly easy for the jury to figure out. I don't understand why the prosecution thinks it has to be underhanded to get this guy convicted.

U.S. District Court Judge.

Nominated by President Bill Clinton.
Entered duty 10/23/93.

The judge is the problem.

This judge must not do many criminal cases if this is her first real world view of prosecutorial misconduct.

Prosecutors playing games like this are par for the course.

Newsflash: lawyers DO speak to witnesses before they testify. I dont know exactly what went down here, but this judge is apparently all over it like a fly on doggy doo.
Most times it's a very grey area, unless there is an obvious suborning of perjury...

http://www.waltersteele.com/fall2001.htm
Ethics in the Woodshed

About nine years ago I co-authored a short article suggesting that there may be ethical limits to the process popularly known as "woodshedding" witnesses, Lawyers and the Leopard's Spots: The Ethics of Preparing and Presenting Testimony, Forum, State Bar of Texas Criminal Justice Section (Dec. 1992). One noted Texas- based publication refused to publish the article, because, they said: "We would be ridden out of town on a rail." Just as they predicted, I received some horrific feed back after that article was published. Words like "hallucinating heretic", "arrogant academic", and "professional deviant" were cast my way, all because I was "so naive" as to suggest that there might be ethical limits on the practice of woodshedding.

Then and now I am surprised that the notion of ethical limits to witness coaching evokes such a hostile response from some lawyers. I take some comfort in the supposition that lawyers who believe they have an intrinsically unqualified right to coach witness are the same ones who react with clamoring professional outrage whenever they perceive that the opposing lawyer is "coaching the witness"during depositions or trials. Adding to my comfort, I discovered recently that the heretics to the east, (i.e. British Barristers) have a viewpoint about the matter akin to mine. The Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Whales (July 31, 2000) Rule 705 (a) provides :

"A barrister must not rehearse, practice or coach a witness in relation to his evidence or the way in which he should give it"

Amplification of the rule can be found in Miscellaneous Guidance 9 Dealings With Witnesses (v)

"Rule 705....does not prevent Counsel giving general advice to a witness...e.g. speak up, speak slowly...do not guess or speculate.....By contrast, mock cross examinations or rehearsals of particular lines of questioning ...are not permitted....."

Recently other writers (heretics ?) have dared to venture into the untouchable ground of witnesses coaching ethics, see e.g. Wydick, The Ethics of Witnesses Coaching, 17 Cardozo L. Rev. 1 (1995); Zacharias and Martin, Coaching Witnesses 87 Kentucky L. J. 1001 (1999) Salimi, Don't Walk the Line: Ethical Considerations in Preparing Witnesses for Depo and Trial, 18 Rev.of Lit. 135 (winter 1999).

A good place to begin this discussion is to assume that all readers agree that subornation of perjury violates legal and ethical norms. We reach easy agreement about that because we all recognize that the role of a witness is to present facts. Obviously perjury is a brazenly purposeful effort to present lies; not facts. I doubt that any lawyer would argue that they have a right or an obligation to suborn perjury as a part of the process of preparing a witness to testify.

Now that we have that agreement, lets examine the manner by which a witness presents facts. There are two facets to it: (1) the words spoken by the witness (2) the credibility of the witness. Fact finders are instructed to examine the credibleness of a witness as well as the words spoken by the witness. To evaluate the words, the fact finder focuses on the reasonableness of what the witness relates. To evaluate credibility, the fact finder focuses on the manner in which the witness presents; that is, the persona of the witness.

External factors sometimes inhibit a particular witness's ability to speak in a way that effectively presents the truth. Being a witness is foreign and perhaps frightening. Not all witnesses are well spoken. Surely, it aids the achievement of justice when lawyers discuss with witnesses those matters that will assist the witness to communicate. Likewise it adds greatly to the efficiency and accuracy of the process when lawyers explain to witnesses what facts are significant and why. There is considerable leeway in these efforts. Typically accepted techniques are set forth in Restatement Third, The Law Governing Lawyers Section 116, Comment b:

"In preparing a witness to testify...[a lawyer ] may include the following:...effective courtroom demeanor,....discussing the applicability of the law to the events in issue..discussing probable lines of hostile cross-examination ....rehearsal of testimony. A lawyer may suggest choice of words that might be employed to make the witness's meaning clear....."

These and similar techniques facilitate getting "witness words" to the fact finder. But techniques that corrupt the processes are not legitimate.

At times the line between assisting the process and corrupting the process is not easy to find. Nevertheless, lawyers are in the business of dealing with obscurity. That one must think to locate the difference between what is and what is not legitimate does not excuse not thinking.
Full article:
http://www.waltersteele.com/fall2001.htm

Newsflash: lawyers DO speak to witnesses before they testify. I dont know exactly what went down here, but this judge is apparently all over it like a fly on doggy doo.
Most times it's a very grey area, unless there is an obvious suborning of perjury...

http://www.waltersteele.com/fall2001.htm
Ethics in the Woodshed

About nine years ago I co-authored a short article suggesting that there may be ethical limits to the process popularly known as "woodshedding" witnesses, Lawyers and the Leopard's Spots: The Ethics of Preparing and Presenting Testimony, Forum, State Bar of Texas Criminal Justice Section (Dec. 1992). One noted Texas- based publication refused to publish the article, because, they said: "We would be ridden out of town on a rail." Just as they predicted, I received some horrific feed back after that article was published. Words like "hallucinating heretic", "arrogant academic", and "professional deviant" were cast my way, all because I was "so naive" as to suggest that there might be ethical limits on the practice of woodshedding.

Then and now I am surprised that the notion of ethical limits to witness coaching evokes such a hostile response from some lawyers. I take some comfort in the supposition that lawyers who believe they have an intrinsically unqualified right to coach witness are the same ones who react with clamoring professional outrage whenever they perceive that the opposing lawyer is "coaching the witness"during depositions or trials. Adding to my comfort, I discovered recently that the heretics to the east, (i.e. British Barristers) have a viewpoint about the matter akin to mine. The Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Whales (July 31, 2000) Rule 705 (a) provides :

"A barrister must not rehearse, practice or coach a witness in relation to his evidence or the way in which he should give it"

Amplification of the rule can be found in Miscellaneous Guidance 9 Dealings With Witnesses (v)

"Rule 705....does not prevent Counsel giving general advice to a witness...e.g. speak up, speak slowly...do not guess or speculate.....By contrast, mock cross examinations or rehearsals of particular lines of questioning ...are not permitted....."

Recently other writers (heretics ?) have dared to venture into the untouchable ground of witnesses coaching ethics, see e.g. Wydick, The Ethics of Witnesses Coaching, 17 Cardozo L. Rev. 1 (1995); Zacharias and Martin, Coaching Witnesses 87 Kentucky L. J. 1001 (1999) Salimi, Don't Walk the Line: Ethical Considerations in Preparing Witnesses for Depo and Trial, 18 Rev.of Lit. 135 (winter 1999).

A good place to begin this discussion is to assume that all readers agree that subornation of perjury violates legal and ethical norms. We reach easy agreement about that because we all recognize that the role of a witness is to present facts. Obviously perjury is a brazenly purposeful effort to present lies; not facts. I doubt that any lawyer would argue that they have a right or an obligation to suborn perjury as a part of the process of preparing a witness to testify.

Now that we have that agreement, lets examine the manner by which a witness presents facts. There are two facets to it: (1) the words spoken by the witness (2) the credibility of the witness. Fact finders are instructed to examine the credibleness of a witness as well as the words spoken by the witness. To evaluate the words, the fact finder focuses on the reasonableness of what the witness relates. To evaluate credibility, the fact finder focuses on the manner in which the witness presents; that is, the persona of the witness.

External factors sometimes inhibit a particular witness's ability to speak in a way that effectively presents the truth. Being a witness is foreign and perhaps frightening. Not all witnesses are well spoken. Surely, it aids the achievement of justice when lawyers discuss with witnesses those matters that will assist the witness to communicate. Likewise it adds greatly to the efficiency and accuracy of the process when lawyers explain to witnesses what facts are significant and why. There is considerable leeway in these efforts. Typically accepted techniques are set forth in Restatement Third, The Law Governing Lawyers Section 116, Comment b:

"In preparing a witness to testify...[a lawyer ] may include the following:...effective courtroom demeanor,....discussing the applicability of the law to the events in issue..discussing probable lines of hostile cross-examination ....rehearsal of testimony. A lawyer may suggest choice of words that might be employed to make the witness's meaning clear....."

These and similar techniques facilitate getting "witness words" to the fact finder. But techniques that corrupt the processes are not legitimate.

At times the line between assisting the process and corrupting the process is not easy to find. Nevertheless, lawyers are in the business of dealing with obscurity. That one must think to locate the difference between what is and what is not legitimate does not excuse not thinking.
Full article:
http://www.waltersteele.com/fall2001.htm

Thanks. Nuff said.

The judge is the problem.

No, kabar, prosecutors behaving badly & the ignorant fools that tolerate it - that's the problem.

It's my understanding that a law school intern wouldn't screw up like she did. We should be looking into who she may be working for, scrutinizing her bank accounts, and looking for any signs of unexplained affluence. Somebody somewhere was bribing her to "accidentally" blow the case, there is no other explanation.

Just release this poor abused individual.

Then lock him with indestructable handcuffs to Senator Russell Feingold. They will make a great pair of hate America bozos.

Did the judge talk to witnesses or, did the judge order such discussions unadvisable? You are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

I sure hope the FBI or someone is investigating this woman. Could she be another lawyer in cohoots with the terrorists...à la Lynne Stewart.

The Reuters headline for this story is "Judge Deals Blow in Moussaoui Trial." How many dealer judges do we have in this country? I mean, what happened to the War on Drugs anyway?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060315/ts_nm/security_moussaoui_dc

She certainly did, but how long do you think it will be before we see her appear on television as a "legal expert who was a former government attorney"? FOX, MSNBC, and CNN are probably all making offers to her now.

Judge allows government to continue to seek death penalty against Zacarias Moussaoui

Title is misleading (not your fault), key point is throwing out evidence and stacking deck for the terrorist who should have long ago been executed

Another judge in favor of terrorists and terrorism just could not help herself ...

Title is misleading (not your fault), key point is throwing out evidence and stacking deck for the terrorist who should have long ago been executed. Another judge in favor of terrorists and terrorism just could not help herself ...

If tainted evidence and coached witness testimony is okay, then why even have a trial? Just take him out back and kill him.

As admirable as military service is, it's sad when you don't understand what you are defending...