Artist sketch of Palfrey court hearing on April 30, 2007.
Jury selection in the DC Madam trial [Deborah Jeane Palfrey] starts today. On a sidenote from Friday's hearing. From Legal Times:
Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Butler asked Judge James Robertson if in opening statements he could mention that a witness had contracted a sexually transmitted disease (presumably, in the course of employment for Palfrey). After giving his approval, Robertson deadpanned: "By the time we get past a day or two of this [trial], STDs will be the least of our worries." [LOL!]
Prosecutors asked Robertson to allow them to introduce a past conviction at trial. The judge on Friday, however, ruled that it would be excluded from trial. But he raised the possibility that the government could use the conviction if Palfrey testified in her own defense.
And the prosecution's opening arguments will be quite interesting if he mentions about a witness that contracted STD? Is the prosecutor going to give the jury a sermon on STD and the no glove, no love argument? And is the mentioning of the witness who contracted STD irrelevant to the charges of Ms. Palfrey (i.e. money laundering, federal racketeering, etc.] ? Not following the prosecution's angle on this. Will keep you posted on any update of the Palfrey trial.
2 comments:
McBush "justice"...only a Bushite would be more concerned about std's than unsigned, doj leaked affidavits!
Some prosecutors, are they grads of the "law school" that Monica Goodling attended? The ones I learned from also taught me when the pros has evidence like that, they have a duty to point it out, not CYA.
Now we'll see our tax dollars at work on a case that is fulled with no answers but only questions. Criminal cases have to be won beyond a reasonable doubt and this one starts that way an will end that way. It started with using this case to cover up questions of prostitution in the Wilkes case. Smoken Gun was leaked the lie and that answered the public's questions. Only problem it wasn't true. Then the problem was how does the Government get out of the lie. Some dummy said let's scare her with the Rico Act. It backfired and the Bush Judge made a fool of herself. Now what do we do but continue. All the Government witnesses have immunity for crimes, but we are to believe every word they say. The woman moon light from their jobs but it's the companies fault. The only money paid was to employed people where's the Rico Act crime. This is what happen when none experienced lawyers are given jobs they can't handle. We have seen the Appointees of the Bush Administration who are dumb as door knobs. Even Gonzales couldn't defend a flea in a flea market. Connie Rice is and has been over her head with both jobs Bush gave her. Now even the inter circle of the Bush team are blaming each other for this mess. I hope Jean sues the draws of the Government and moves her money to another country. This case is a clear example of the lost of the US Justice System.
Post a Comment