WORLD Law Direct Forums  





Go Back   WORLD Law Direct Forums > Forum Information > Law News
REGISTER FAQ SEARCH Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Personal Lawyer Legal Forms Calendar

Law News Breaking law news and events.

‘Not A Potted Plant’: A Look at Ted Stevens’s Lawyer

Consult Your Own Personal Lawyer Now!
Reply
AddThis Feed Button
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 13th, 2008, 08:40 PM     #1
News
 
WSJ_law_blog's Avatar
 
Last Online:
Jul 16th, 2008 11:37 AM
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog
Posts: 640

Default ‘Not A Potted Plant’: A Look at Ted Stevens’s Lawyer

“I can’t do my job.”

“The government knew the documents were lies.”

“Dismiss it!”

Those words, uttered by Brendan Sullivan Jr. of Williams & Connolly, show how the Beltway Bigwig has been anything other than a “potted plant” in his defense of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, who is on trial for allegedly failing to disclose $250,000 worth of gifts and services he received. By all accounts, the DOJ prosecution has been shaky, and Sullivan has capitalized on several mistakes by prosecutors. (See LB coverage here.)

“Mr. Sullivan, combining a calibrated theatricality and exhaustive preparation, has set Justice Department prosecutors on their heels and shaped the scope of much of the evidence to his liking,” NYT reported over the weekend. One of Sullivan’s tactics: expressing outrage after finding prosecutors didn’t turn over potentially exculpatory evidence.

“Given that holding the government closely to its disclosure obligations is a well-known strategy of Mr. Sullivan’s, experienced Washington lawyers who have sat in on the trial say they are stunned that the Justice Department government left itself vulnerable by repeatedly making mistakes,” reports NYT.

Legal Times also weighed in, noting that three weeks into the trial, which is taking place in Washington, the actions of DOJ’s Public Integrity Section have threatened to “doom the case.”

The judge overseeing the case, Emmet Sullivan has already instructing the jury to ignore some testimony and evidence because prosecutors had not played by the rules.

Among the mistakes: Judge Sullivan ruled that prosecutors redacted exculpatory information from an FBI report and belatedly turned over a clean copy the night Brendan Sullivan and his team were to cross-examine the government’s star witness, Bill Allen, who allegedly provided most of the gifts and services to Stevens. The judge also found prosecutors did not turn over a material document through discovery and presented to jurors business records from Mr. Allen’s former company that the government knew were false. For an update of today’s trial happenings, here’s the AP story.

Last edited by top_admin : Oct 13th, 2008 at 09:22 PM.
WSJ_law_blog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Add Forum to Google Toolbar | Format Your Messages

Posting Rules

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Was the Massage Chair Sen. Stevens’s ‘Photofete’ Moment? WSJ_law_blog Law News 0 Oct 28th, 2008 12:20 PM
In Olson v. Larisa, No Other Option Than ‘Ted Wins’? WSJ_law_blog Law News 0 Oct 22nd, 2008 08:50 AM
Defense Requests Mistrial for Senator Stevens; Judge ‘Flabbergasted’ WSJ_law_blog Law News 0 Sep 30th, 2008 12:30 AM
D.C. Circuit to Treasury: ‘Yer Money’s No Good Here!’ WSJ_law_blog Law News 0 May 20th, 2008 01:50 PM
Fallout from L’Affaire Spitzer: ‘Kristen’ Sues ‘Girls Gone Wild’ Founder WSJ_law_blog Law News 0 Apr 29th, 2008 01:00 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 AM.


Top crime attorneys

Subscribe

Use of the Forums is subject to our Disclaimer which prohibits unapproved advertisements, solicitations or other commercial messages, and false, harassing or abusive statements. All postings reflect the views of the author but become the property of WORLD Law Direct.

Questions and information submitted in the Forums are assumed inquiries for general information and not legal advice.

Copyright 2000-2009 by WORLDLawDirect.com, Inc.