Life Through a Dirty Glass: The Ted Stevens Trial, a Retrospective

[WSJ_law_blog]

The trial of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, Tuesday, Oct. 21,2008, at U.S. District Court in Washington. From left: Stevens, his defense attorney Brendan Sullivan addressing the jury, and Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, at the bench. (AP/Dana Verkouteren)

Over its month-long span, the Ted Stevens trial acquired several themes and hallmarks: Prosecutorial blundering, allegations of shady lawyering, the continued dissolution of a longtime friendship, and seemingly petty spats over design taste and the giving (or loaning?) of gas grills.

Today, the trial provided one final twist before the verdict: According to ABC News, the day opened with Judge Emmet Sullivan telling lawyers that, in their closings, mention of Colin Powell’s “Meet the Press” endorsement of Barack Obama was verboten. (At trial, Powell, a key defense witness, called Stevens’ character “sterling.”)

Otherwise, the day apparently provided little surprise. Prosecutors reportedly ridiculed Stevens’s explanation of alleged gifts as “nonsense.” Prosecutor Joseph Bottini told jurors that Stevens surrounded himself with wealthy, generous friends who could be counted on to give gifts and who could be trusted to keep it quiet.

Stevens’ lead lawyer, Williams & Connolly’s Brendan Sullivan, reportedly told jurors that to believe the government, you’d have to believe in “a master cover-up by a sinister senator.” Sullivan claimed that Stevens and his wife paid $160,000 for the remodeling of their Girdwood, Alaska, A-frame, and that more than covered the cost of the project.

When prosecutors “look at life through a dirty glass,” Sullivan said, “then the whole world looks dirty.”

But regardless of what verdict comes back, the Law Blog has a tough time imagining a victory for either side. For Stevens, we will remember his awkward explanation of the infamous massage chair as a seven-year loan from a friend. And then there’s Stevens’s political career. In the final weeks of his campaign he’s been stuck in a D.C. courtroom while his opponent, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, has had Alaska to himself.

As for the DOJ’s case against Stevens, prosecutors’ recovery on cross-examination may not have been enough to make up for their series of missteps that, from the start, launched the trial into theatrics — a witness sent back to Alaska before his testimony, potentially exculpatory evidence withheld.

What do you think, Law Blog Readers? Can the Stevens trial produce a winner?