Colorado Defendants Deserve the Same Justice Given to a U.S. Senator
Denver, CO, May 18, 2016 (Newswire.com) - On April 19, 2012, Congressmen Jim Sensenbrenner, John Conyers, Bobby Scott and other members of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security on the Judiciary House of Representatives held a hearing on the wrongful-conviction of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens. Sensenbrenner pointed out in the hearing that prosecutors "won their case through willfully failing to disclose" discovery evidence favorable to Senator Stevens and making misrepresentations to the judge and defense counsel. "If [prosecutors] had complied with their ethical and legal obligations, the jury might not have convicted Senator Stevens," said Sensenbrenner.
"If these offenses could happen to Senator Stevens, they could happen to anyone," said Congressman Conyers. "Often overlooked is the fact that prosecutorial misconduct of this nature happens with alarming frequency, to the obvious harm of countless defendants, many of them far less important than a U.S. Senator," Conyers added.
In a federal mail and wire fraud case in Colorado, federal prosecutor Matthew T. Kirsch, falsely argued that two critical defense experts should be excluded from testifying, because pro se defendants did not provide him with written summaries of proposed expert testimony to be introduced at trial. Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure says that the defense is NOT required to provide the government with written expert summaries UNLESS they first make a similar request of the government. The defendants made no such requests because as trial judge Christine M. Arguello said, "the government has tendered no expert witnesses”. However, Judge Arguello and the 10th Circuit ignored prevailing law, and used the government's exact Rule 16 misrepresentations to rule against the defendants, which is why on May 3, 2016, the wrongly-imprisoned defendants filed a judicial complaint (bit.ly/1Titch5).
Months before trial, both the defendants and their staffing industry experts challenged U.S. Attorney John Walsh on the indictment's allegations that statements about "current or impending contracts" were capable of influencing staffing companies to extend credit to IRP Solutions. The defendants denied the statements were ever made and provided Walsh with a Representations Matrix (bit.ly/24TBRvC) showing a substantial number of actual defendant statements from corporate emails in discovery. Moreover, letters from expert's Andrew Albarelle (bit.ly/1Tiuqc2) and Kelli Baucom (bit.ly/23TkubT) discussing staffing industry business practices decimated government contentions. "The term contract has little to-no bearing on whether we engage with the company or not," said Albarelle. "We base our decision to engage with a company on its creditworthiness, cash flow or the product they are developing, “added Albarelle. "Kirsch illegally suppressed the expert's favorable testimony because it would have lost him the case," says Cliff Stewart of A Just Cause.
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Brady v. Maryland, "that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused...violates due process where evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." "When the government conceals information in a prosecution that could undermine its case against a defendant, such concealment is fundamentally and constitutionally unfair as well as unethical, and it is illegal under Brady v. Maryland," said Congressman Scott. "Given the adversarial relationship between the government and the defendant in criminal cases and the natural desire of human beings, including prosecutors, to win a case, there are strong temptations not to reveal case weaknesses," added Scott.
The committee transcript shows Attorney General Eric Holder, asked the judge to set aside the guilty verdict and to dismiss the indictment of Senator Stevens due to intentional suppression of evidence. "A Just Cause asks Attorney General Lynch, to afford the six Colorado defendants the same justice given to Senator Stevens for intentional suppression, and violation of their Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses in their favor," concludes Stewart
A Just Cause
change.org petition: https:t.co
Source: A Just Cause