One of Judge DeLaughter’s motions was that he was entitled to early disclosure of grand jury testimony because these witnesses were contradicting themselves. While he particularly cited Ed Peters’s pleading alleging he’d been “objectively reasonable,” the motion was improved by public release of depositions in which Paterson and Balducci’s stories don’t quite add up.
DeLaughter is constitutionally entitled to evidence where prosecution witnesses contradict themselves and each other. While ordinarily he’d not get grand jury testimony by right until after the direct examination of the witnesses, what he is saying here is that this case is different because of the complexity and the possible contradictions between the proseuction witnesses. His motion is linked and discussed in this prior post.
The Government’s response, by Assistant U.S. Attorney Curtis Ivy, is that the government is not obligated to give grand jury testimony until after the direct examination of the witnesses. End of discussion. This would be a complete response to a motion that just asked “Make them give me the grand jury testimony.” But… it sort of blows past (or ignores) the argument that, in this instance its different because of the (given the depositions) probably contradictions in all these folks’ stories.
Does that mean I think Judge DeLaughter’s motions will go over? I think he’s arguing to a tough room.
Here’s the Government response.
Question: if all that is required to obtain the testimony early is contradictory testimony, then why not just get rid of the rule?
NMC, what is the purpose of such a rule? especially when you are dealing with numerous witnesses and a bunch of testimony? something seems fundamentally unfair with waiting until after direct examination.
i frankly didn’t see huge discrepency between balducci and patterson. but even if there is, balducci will be a very, very effective witness. patterson is such a sleazeball if i were the government’s attorney i wouldn’t even call him. delaughter certainly won’t.
Most of these rules date back to the time when the federal government strictly prosecuted criminals that threatened the United States, such as mobsters, spies, traitors, and such ilk, there was legitimate concern for the safety of government witnesses. Even now, the government is under no obligation to supply a witness list to the prosecution with few exceptions, contrasted with Mississippi, where the defendant is entitled to “open file” discovery, i.e., everything the state has that it will introduce in its case-in-chief. Now that Congress has seen fit to make many garden-variety street crimes and offenses traditionally prosecuted by states, the rules don’t seem as logical.
oops, typo. “…. witness list the the DEFENSE with few exceptions…”
what happened to the edit button?
If most of these rules date back to the feds prosecuting mobsters, spies and traitors. We’re in luck. You know what? In its simplest form that is exactly what this is. Mobsters, organized crime. Spies, working to obtain secret advantages unknown to others. Traitors, anyone not honoring the blood of those who fought giving all to the freedom of democracy and the laws that generally apply to all ie. the constitution, IS A TRAITOR.
Never one word re: the victims just the power strong struggle of rouge supremacy.
Well, I certainly count Robert’s last as incomprehensible and therefore content free. Anyone else disagree?
Call me crazy, but I think I understand the intent–not the content–of Robert’s post above better than than others he’s posted. Scruggs, Peters, Langston, Balducci, Patterson, maybe DeLaughter (question is whether he was knowingly involved) were engaged in organized crime involving secrecy to gain information and knowledge (secret advantages unknown to others) not accessible to those going the legal route–that route in which the law applies to everyone equally. Therefore, that group of persons are traitors by not honoring the laws, the constitution, and the many good men and women who fought, shed blood, or died to establish, protect, and uphold the U. S. constitution. They are no better than the old-fashioned mobsters for which the early federal prosecutorial rules were established.
I don’t think Robert’s incomprehensible.
He’s simply saying that the rule regarding revealing grand jury testimony was designed to deal with mobsers, et al., and that the Scruggs Co. defendants/witnesses fit that description and are traitors to boot.
He also says that there’s too much focus on the power dynamics between and amongst the ne’er do wells and not on the victims of their crimes.
Whatever I may think of the remarks they are not incomprehensible.
Crispin and NoMiss, I did not grasp that he was talking about the Scruggs defendants. And re-reading his comment, I’m still not sure he is.
I guess I’ll have to say: Your gloss could be imposed upon the comment but does not naturally emerge from it.
Thanks, I think, NMC. I’m still trying to comprehend your last sentence at 11:42. (It sounds similar to something a college prof once wrote on one of my papers.) No one’s ever told me that I have “gloss,” but I like it.
NMC, you must acknowledge that both of us were able to fathom and agree about what Robert said/meant. That fact should establish the remark was not incomprehensible.
robert’s post is knee-jerk material.
my point is that the alleged crimes involve the STATE OF MISSISSIPPI and had little effect, if any, on the federal government, interstate commerce, national security, national defense, etc.
I think the last sentence is pretty disjointed.
So, I vote with NMC.
If I am not mistaken, these crimes had everything to with a case in the federal court system awaiting its resolution.
Incomprehensible like beauty is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.
Crispen of course is correct at 3:29 but he’s not correct at 11:52. The fact that both Crispen and NoMiss arrived at the same (wild-assed guess?) about what Robert meant doesn’t mean it meant that or anything else.
On the other hand, the fact that two people seemed to think it meant something means that I’m not inclined to count it as content free, regardless of how it seems to me personally.
NMC I’ll confirm that I meant the comment to reflect an understanding had by NO.MISS and Crisipin. If you wouldn’t mind could you elaborate your understanding. Oh what flavor is the rum today? Just kidding! In short if people honored the reason we have the constitution just may be it [judicial corruption] wouldn’t be such a common event.
I had no idea what you mean, Robert, so I don’t know how to elaborate on it.
Hey, I went from having “gloss” to being “wild-assed”! I’ll admit I have been told I’m “wide-assed”, but maybe I misunderstood and they actually said “wild-assed.” I think I prefer just having “gloss.”
In attempting to understand this contradictory information by two witnesses, my question is: Are Peters and Patterson intentionally providing contradictory testimony?
NoMiss, do you know what Peters is going to say? (I don’t and would love to know!). Balducci and Patterson are contradictory, and I’m gathering by reading the factual basis for Langston’s plea he might contradict Patterson and/or Balducci but I’m not sure. Peters on the other hand is a riddle wrapped within an enigma (or the other way round, however that saying goes) and will so remain if and until the trial of U.S. v. DeLaughter.
Wild-assed guesses can sometimes be startlingly accurate and occasionally even profound. Yours was correct! Be proud of it!
NMC. I’ve already suggested more paint chips. Think of it as fiber for the brain.
And guessing what he was saying is almost like watching Karnac the Magnificent at work.
blackbear, it was a case pending in Hinds County Circuit Court. you see, Delaughter is a STATE court judge, so he would not be presiding over a FEDERAL case. so, you are indeed, badly, mistaken.