I cannot begin to explain how much this is NOT done. When you are a governmental attorney, you must hold yourself to a higher standard in terms of ethics and maneuvering, precisely because you have a quasi-judicial position in terms of charging decisions and in terms of having the power of the state's investigative capacity behind you.
The rules are that you do not, under any circumstances, woodshed your witnesses as to other testimony that has been given in the case. Period. And you absolutely do not do so, under any circumstances at all whatsoever, when there is a court order from the judge prohibiting such discussion.
Defense lawyer Edward MacMahon also elicited testimony Tuesday that prosecutor David Novak had conducted a joint telephone conversation with two coming witnesses, despite long-standing prohibitions against trial witnesses interacting before they testify.I am beyond appalled. And every person who has ever been a prosecutor (or criminal attorney on either side of the line) ought to be as well. You may use every resource at your disposal to be certain that a guilty person is convicted, sentenced and punished in accordance with their criminal conduct -- but you are never, EVER, supposed to cheat your way to a verdict.
Novak told U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema the phone call, which apparently happened after the judge issued rules on witnesses on Feb. 22, concerned only the logistics of trial exhibits and not the substance of testimony.
Osmuss and Manno told the court they had read not only the e-mails but the trial transcript sent by Martin.That a state's attorney would coach witnesses to the point of providing them transcripts of prior witness' testimony and talking points on how to address particular lines of questioning brought up by defense counsel in a death penalty phase is shameful, wrong, and disgusting. If I were the judge, they'd get the book thrown at them and then some.
Manno said under cross-examination that he had read at least two newspaper stories about the trial and watched four or five TV reports about it until he was told not to, apparently by the prosecution. Prosecutors said they did not routinely advise future witnesses to avoid media coverage in this court district but would start doing so.
Martin also was summoned to the hearing, but had her questioning delayed when she told the judge she had not been able to arrange for her own lawyer. Brinkema had warned her that "you violated a court order and could be held in civil or criminal contempt," and directed her to return with a lawyer by Wednesday morning.
The reporting thus far appears to indicate that the Transportation Administration attorney took issue with the trial strategy and opening statements of the DoJ attorneys, and decided to take matters into her own hands and coach witnesses from her own department within the FAA and Dept. of Transportation. This attorney may not have had any criminal experience, and may not have known the extent to which this sort of thing is prohibited...fine, I could buy that, but for one tiny, little thing: there was an order in place from the judge prohibiting just this sort of behind-the-scenes coaching and collaberation.
But today's testimony also reveals that at least one DoJ attorney was also involved in woodshedding government witnesses as to testimony, trial strategy, and the like -- over and above the normal witness preparation which would normally be perfectly acceptable. To get two witnesses on the phone -- together -- to discuss testimony is to give them a chance to compare notes and "get their stories straight" prior to testimony. To do this in direct violation of a court order is asking for dismissal at best, and potentially being criminally sanctioned for contempt as well as having the judge ask that your law license be suspended.
When you are a public servant, you owe the public nothing less than the your highest level of ethics and conduct, because you represent the interests of every citizen. When you are an attorney, you also owe a duty of respect in upholding our system of laws and the orders of the court. That an attorney would hold those laws and her public duty so cheaply that cheating would seem an appropriate option -- in some win at all costs mentality -- might be a symptom of a larger problem within the Bush Administration. But that does not excuse the behavior, nor does it mitigate the fact that it is flat out wrong.
NOTE: Sorry for the construction headaches this morning. We're trying to get our new site up and running and hit a little snag, so we are back on blogspot for the moment. We'll try to keep you posted as things move along. Thanks so much for your patience in this.