Defense lawyer in a drug case helps organize conspiracy to murder the key witness against his client.
« Even More Table | Main | Kobe Versus LeBron »
Annals of Scumbaggery
21 Dec 2007 03:27 pm
Comments (16)
I only read the first 1/4 and skimmed the rest, but is there any indication the guy is guilty of any crimes? I didn't see it.
Mitch, the prosecutors say so and say they have evidence which they can't use in court. Isn't that enough?
Ok, did anyone else read this and think that this sounds just like Maurice Levy in Season One of The Wire?
I happen to know that Matt Yglesias is the secret head of an underground dogfighting ring, but I can't prove it because one of the dogs ate the evidence.
No, it's just a coincidence that after the name of the witness is disclosed to the defense attorney (which the prosecution is required to do)and the defense attorney somehow discloses that fact or someone in his office just happens to make a copy of the declaration the witness has made under penalty of perjury a copy of the declartion ends up posted in the neigborhood or the name of the witness is disclosed to a third party because the defendant's mother wants the attorney to meet with the third party, and later the witness is murdered. But, of course, the most important flaw in the article is that there is no support for the fact that the gang leader is the largest distributor of heroin. What I would like to know is how the Assistant US prosecutor "lost" the key evidence against the defense attorney.
"No, it's just a coincidence that after the name of the witness is disclosed to the defense attorney (which the prosecution is required to do)and the defense attorney somehow discloses that fact or someone in his office just happens to make a copy of the declaration the witness has made under penalty of perjury a copy of the declartion ends up posted in the neigborhood or the name of the witness is disclosed to a third party because the defendant's mother wants the attorney to meet with the third party, and later the witness is murdered."
Yeah, it could well be a coincidence. Believe it or not, people involved in the drug trade often end up getting killed and a conspiracy isn't always required.
"Mr. Bergrin said that he was bewildered by the US attorney's assertion that he had sought to have Mr. McCray killed. He said he had spoken to Mr. Curry about the caseonly at the request of his client's mother, who had informed him that Mr. curry was her son's cousin." 'I was just relaying the strenghths and the weaknesses of the case with my client's relative because of his close relationship'"
So Bergrin says when he disclosed the information to the gang leader, he had no INTENTION to have the witness be killed, he was just following the wishes of the defendant's mom.
"I got a chance to speak to William, and he said the informan is a guy by the name of K-Mo," Mr. Bergrin told Mr. Curry the gang leader according to a transcript of the conversation which was taped."
But he was only innocently following the instructions of the mother of the defendant.
Oh, I forgot - in the New Bushpig America defendants aren't permitted to know who the witnesses against them are.
They're lucky they're even told what the charges are, I suppose.
Why didn't I think of that?
Ack. Tag issues.
[Giuliani]Why didn't I think of that?[/Giuliani]
Anyone else curious how the reporter knows who the most powerful heroin distributor in Newark is?
The same way reporters figure out who the best team in college football is.
We really need Essex County smack playoffs
Jeff,
My thoughts exactly.
With the comments prosecutors made about the attorney in open court, it sounds an awful lot like they hate having to go up against effective counsel. Obviously if you assist people in exercising their constitutional rights, you're dangerous and must be stopped.
I saw Mitt Romney's dad marching against this guy.
matt, i am quite surprised that you would link to this gossip, even more surprised than i am that the times published it. the killing of witnesses is a legitimate story, as is the inability of law enforcement to prevent it. recounting gossip that blames it all on defense lawyers because they represent clients and discuss their cases with clients, including the merits or lack thereof of the prosecution's case is not news.
prosecutors don't like to lose. they don't even like to be contradicted. in many ways, the bush administration simply took global the strategies and tactics prosecutors have used for years: the overriding premise is that crime is a horrific, ever-present danger to all. anyone who denies this is with the criminals; anyone lawyer who disputes the prosecution's case is lying or crooked, don't fall for that civil liberties rhetoric; any judge that gives less than the sentence we insisted on is soft on crime or corrupt; any jury that acquits will be maligned as stupid or foolish. there is no need for evidence; there is only need for my statements as a prosecutor.
now, don't get me wrong, we need prosecutors. we don't need the righteous and narrow views that too many prosecutors hold. crime is a problem in many areas, but it is not the danger, they make it out to be, and therefore is not a reason to deny the rights and ideals of the nation. if the prosecutors have a case against a particular defense lawyer, let them indict him and show the evidence (of course, as federal prosecutors, they will get to withhold much of that form him till the very last minute). but if they have no case, they should not simply abuse him in the press, and the nation's most respected newspaper should have somewhat higher standards than does Page 6.
Comments closed January 04, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Mr. Baskerville’s cousin and Newark’s most powerful heroin distributor
Anyone else curious how the reporter knows who the most powerful heroin distributor in Newark is? Has he audited the books of a bunch of heroin distributors to figure it out?
Posted by washerdreyer | December 21, 2007 4:04 PM