There is a list of defense witnesses
that are heroes in my eyes as each has the backbone and the morals to
stand up for justice in Paul Bergrin's trial. It is no easy task to
defy the feds, whether free or incarcerated, and in this case federal
agents have been clear that they're not seeking truth. There have
been thinly veiled threats leveled at all defense witnesses by
prosecutors in this case.
Any witness for the defense must
anticipate problems that could prevent testimony and retribution by
angry prosecutors and agents for the refusal to go along with the
show trial and their intention to testify truthfully. The
government has already issued a warning to defense witnesses in this
case that there could be Fifth Amendment issues in regards to
testimony in court.
The Fifth Amendment states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Now the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution is intended as a protection against
self-incrimination and government abuse of authority in a legal
procedure. However, in this situation it is being used as a tool to
threaten Paul Bergrin's defense witnesses. I will give you an example
of what could possibly happen with a testifying witness:
In my own RICO trial the state's main
witness pled the Fifth while testifying. Her name is Theresa Ann
Isaacs and actually she has at least four additional names that I
discovered - a couple prior to my trial and a couple more following
my acquittal. We'll just call her Terri for the sake of this example.
When my attorney, Stephen Wolverton,
deposed Terri just prior to my trial, she refused to answer certain
questions that related to her relationship with the main case agent
and how they met, previous arrests, and tax evasion in relation to
her own escort services. With some questions she offered vague,
non-committal type responses and yet with other questions she simply
refused to answer. A witness can do that to the defense when being
deposed, but it doesn't fly in a courtroom during trial testimony.
A witness, whether for the government
or for the defense, cannot plead the Fifth in trial testimony and
still remain a witness. This is a main reason that I didn't
understand why Oscar Cordova was not tossed from the courtroom when
he stopped answering Paul Bergrin's questions on cross-examination.
Oscar asked to leave for the day and the judge allowed him to do so.
However, Oscar was returned to the stand the following morning, so
really he only attained overnight relief. This was presumably to
allow the government a short period of time to get their shit
together.
So back to Terri...
Knowing which specific questions
resulted in Terri offering vague responses or the refusal to respond
at all, Mr. Wolverton was able to zero-in on these questions with the
hope of hearing valid truthful responses in trial. Terri came through
like a champion horse at the Kentucky Derby and pled the Fifth while
on the stand. The judge informed her that she was a witness, not a
defendant, and would not be able to testify if she refused to answer
the particular question. He called a long lunch break and instructed
Terri to contact her attorney and decide if she was testifying, or
not.
Following our more than two-hour lunch,
Terri returned to the stand. She claimed that she was unable to reach
her attorney, but stated confidently that she wanted to testify. She
stated this with a big smirk on her face as she glared at me. Mr.
Wolverton returned to the same line of questioning and Terri, once
again, pled the Fifth.
Did Terri think that my attorney would
let her off the hook because she was cute? I have no clue what goes
on in the mind of a druggie called as a witness for the state. I
think the drugs fried her brain. Perhaps her ringing cellphone also
distracted her. Yes, this escort business owner's phone was ringing
away while she was on the stand and the entire courtroom (jury
included) turned to look at her purse when it happened.
She looked like she was thinking and in
mental pain at the same time; stuck and unsure of her next move or
statement. Terri requested that the bailiff bring her a grass of
water. Considering that the jurors, the defense, the prosecutors and
myself were all thirsty and had no water, Terri definitely lost a few
points as she slowly drank the entire glass of water while keeping us
waiting.
Mr. Wolverton repeated the question,
Terri pled the Fifth again, and the judge told her that she was
excused as a witness in my case. I was told by a friend in the
hallway that tears rolled down her cheeks and she broke into a full,
heaving cry by the time she hit the hallway circus that she had
brought with her. Terri went into a private room with Brant Rose, the
main case agent, and remained there for almost an hour. She then
followed a juror into the bathroom and cried to that juror.
The juror reported the bathroom
encounter to the bailiff who then reported it to the judge. I was
given the option of a mistrial, but I passed on that. I had no
interest in allowing the state to get their shit together and coach
Terri on how to respond to those questions. I requested that the
trial continue.
Terri was not charged with jury
tampering and neither was Brant Rose. I would buy a bridge in
Brooklyn before I'd believe that her encounter with the juror in the
bathroom was not plotted in that private room. The prosecution was a
tremendous fail at that point and the main case agent absolutely
needed a mistrial to regroup, which is of course why I refused it. A
mistrial is not necessarily a good thing.
Back to the Paul Bergrin trial
After reading my little story, do you
see how the government could prevent valid testimony important to the
defense using the Fifth Amendment?
The only person that this is close to impossible
to work with is the man in Jamaica that will be testifying via live
video conferencing. If you have read the defense letter dated 5 March
2013 on the Documents page of this blog, then you're aware of his
testimony and how important it is to Paul Bergrin. Ignatius Ben Hohn
operated the auto body shop where Anthony Young claimed to have gone
to melt the weapon that he allegedly used to murder Kemo Deshawn
McCray.
Mr. Hohn's testimony blows a huge hole
in criminal informant Anthony Young's testimony. Mr. Hohn is not an
informant, he's also not a criminal, and he is not being paid for
testimony in the form of substantial assistance letters from the
government to shave many years off any lengthy sentence. Whose
testimony is more believable? Why Mr. Hohn's of course.
Mr. Hohn's testimony is also
corroborated by Rashidah Tarver's testimony in the first trial that
she never drove Anthony Young to Ben Hohn's auto body shop to melt
the murder weapon. At the last trial, Ms. Tarver disputed that she
ever drove Young and Baskerville to Mr. Hohn's shop as Young
testified. The defense investigator located Mr. Hohn and now there
are two people making the same statement and neither are criminal
informants seeking sentence reductions.
There are certainly more defense
witnesses and some are convicted of crimes, serving sentences, and
will be brought to the courtroom by U.S. Marshals from various
prisons. The main difference between these defense witnesses and the
government's criminal informants is that the defense witnesses are
not seeking favors from prosecutors and sentence reductions.
In fact, the reality is quite the
opposite. The defense witnesses that are serving time will likely be
abused by the government and suffer for their truthful testimony. I
intend to compile a list, once it is available to me, to note the
defense witnesses testifying for no gain whatsoever. In doing so, I
can only hope that much of the potential abuse by government agents
can be prevented. Keeping those names public could help to prevent government
initiated problems for those witnesses.
Not all convicted criminals that are
testifying in this trial are doing so for profit, substantial time
off of a lengthy prison sentence, or any other gain whatsoever. Some
are heroes and hopefully you, and the jurors, realize the serious
differences.
1 comment:
Paul made a great defense today. It's sad to see what he has through go through with his family. Especially not seeing his grandchildren.
On the other note. He proved how much of a compulsive liar Anthony Young is. So the counts involving the murder Anthony Young confessed to should be thrown out the window. IDK why the FBI made such a huge case out of this issue when they didn't have any concrete evidence. I thought we established the man who killed Mr. McCray had dreadlocks?
Oscar Cardova was really an embarrassment to the Prosecutor's case but was great for Bergrin's defense. I believe on the 3 most important issues (the two murders and drug counts) he will be acquitted.
BTW if he's acquitted of the first murder count wouldn't that possibly dismiss the rico counts in its entirety? It would change the date of when the alleged rico initially began?
Post a Comment