Posted on 03/14/2006 12:19:27 PM PST by aculeus
ALEXANDRIA, Va., March 14 — The government lawyer whose coaching of witnesses has thrown the death sentencing trial of Zacarias Moussaoui into turmoil took the witness stand briefly today but declined to testify until she retained a lawyer after the judge said her actions could expose her to criminal charges.
Judge Leonie M. Brinkema conducted the highly unusual hearing in the middle of the Moussaoui trial to determine what steps to take after revelations that the attorney, Carla Martin, advised seven government witnesses over their forthcoming testimony. Ms. Martin's actions have jeopardized the Justice Department's case to have Mr. Moussaoui executed.
[snip]
Ms. Martin, looking stricken and dressed in black, looked like a mourner at a funeral having trouble keeping her composure. When Judge Brinkema said she faced possible civil or criminal contempt charges Ms. Martin said she had not yet been able to contact her lawyer. She was told to do so quickly.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Is this moron a Clinton appointee?
probably an apprentice of Marcia Clarke .
From other reports her "coaching" was interpreted to aim to 1. boost the FAA's reputation while, 2. arguing that if not for Moussaoui 9/11 would have been prevented.
Moussaoui was charged with a crime he didn't commit, even the 9/11 commission said he was part of a future second wave attack, he's a nut and pleaded guilty. From the day the govt. scrubbed the cropduster allegations from the charges and tried to pin 9/11 on Moussaoui this matter has been a circus. He should have been sent to Guantanamo.
Do ya think she was trying to help the defense.How could anybody be that stupid,unless they had an agenda.
Would someone help me out please?
What is wrong with an attorney "coaching" witnesses? It happens all the time. Most lawyers want to talk at length with any witnesses they are going to put on the stand. What crime by the lawyer could be involved here? Maybe a contempt citation is appropriate, if the judge's order was violated, but a crime? Why would this lawyer be held responsible for the supposed violation when she was not one of the lawyers representing the U.S. in court? This sounds like little more than a judge who does not like the death penalty!
Fox just announced the judge has excluded this witness' testimony, but the trial will go forth -- with the death penalty still allowed.
That sent a chill down my spine, now I feel sorry for her.
maybe she's a female 'johnny taliban'
or an affirmative action hire. or just an assclown.who knows.
working for the government who is telling me to stockpile canned tuna under my bed.nothing surprises me.
I believe in this case the witnesses were supposed to be testifying w/o knowledge of what other witnesses had said, and this attorney told her witnesses what had been said already in court.
No matter what happens, she should be shown the door. dipstick.
Witness coaching is something every competent trial lawyer does. And, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the pretrial preparation of witnesses. It's the on-set of the trial and the taking of testimony that causes the no discussion rule to become operative. I've even had a judge tell me that, in an antitrust bench trial, if I were going to go to lunch with my client, I would be on my honor to not discuss the case with him and stop him from discussing it with me. That rule has been blessed by every level of appellate court and, in some jurisdictions, codified in the written rules.
The judge is correct in being furious; I sure as hell would be too.
You don't even have to be a lawyer to know she broke all the rules. No one with a JD could not know better.
This lawyer should be the one going to Guantanamo, to find out why exactly she did what she did and who she was really working for.
Sharing the testimony of other witnesses, and telling your witness what to say is a quick ticket to disbarment. One of the most interesting things I ever saw when I worked in a DA"s office as a law student intern was the witness prep. The DA's ran over what they intended to ask the witnesses on direct, but they never, ever told them what to say. They went out of their way to tell people not to try to "help" them by trying to iron out inconsistencies.
Moussaoui trial cleared to resume
The US can continue to seek the death penalty for the only person charged in the US in connection with the 9/11 attacks, a judge has ruled.
Judge Leonie Brinkema had suspended the sentencing trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, saying government prosecutors had been involved in "egregious" misconduct.
She has now said the trial could continue and that the government could press its death penalty case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4807382.stm
But she is throwing out key evidence, the AFP news agency reported.
she wants to get good and tainted herself first.
It's one thing to make a mistake on a technicality or something not obvious, while it is another thing to make a really stupid mistake that should be obvious. This sounds more like the latter. Why? This case is very important.
There are such things as stupid lawyers. I've encountered more than a few.
I thought the same thing. Of course they coach the witnesses - not to lie but what to mostly not say. I am confused by this whole thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.