Paul Bergrin had a list of witnesses to
call, but the US Marshal Service couldn't get any to the courtroom
fast enough for Judge Cavanaugh. Take note the the Marshal's service
had a complete list by the middle of February. To the judge's
credit, he probably realizes that there is no need for more witnesses
on Bergrin's part.
The government's case was like a walk
through the Land of Oz. The long list of witnesses that testified is
probably less important than the list of the missing witnesses. When
the prosecutors fail to call those referred to as main witnesses in
past, well, there's a real problem with each one of them. Yolanda
Jauregui, Alejandro Barraza-Castro, Ramon Jiminez, and Albert Castro
were all conspicuously absent from this trial. Jason Itzler was the
owner of NY Confidential and prosecutors called Natalie McLennan
instead, though she witnessed little and nothing at all that was
relevant to the charges.
We heard from major drug traffickers
that received no prison time at all in exchange for false testimony
about Bergrin, a list of garden variety informants that would say
anything for time off a long sentence, an alleged shooter that never
was one to begin with, jailhouse snitches that plotted against former
clients of Bergrin's, a high-priced hooker that spent years on drugs
and shopping, and Oscar. Who knows what to say about Oscar? Good
grief. Send him back to the psychiatric facility, please.
The government spent 8 weeks presenting
its case. Paul Bergrin was given a week and was weighed-down by US
Marshals that could not accomplish the mission. Thanks to technical
issues at the Four Seasons in Kingston, Jamaica, live video
conferencing of a defense witness was not possible and the jury was
given some sort of stipulation as a substitute.
Paul was able to call Lemont Love to
the stand today, though his testimony was shadowed by some debatable
recording that the government came-up with. I did not hear the
recorded telephone call and the jury did, so they can judge that one
by themselves. At any rate, Mr. Love had nothing whatsoever to gain,
unlike the government's witnesses. Worst case scenario is that Lemont
Love lied, which is what all of the government witnesses did and with the government's blessing. He was
correct in stating that Thomas Moran was threatened with the death
penalty and given 10 minutes to make-up his mind, and that is not
public information.
I have heard numerous negative comments
about Ritchie Roberts, the attorney that Love refers to in his
affidavit, and from several directions. How many government witnesses
has he visited and discussed this planned movie with? Perhaps we will
find out in the summation. Rest assured that Lemont Love was not
alone in recounting that topic of their conversations. Love also made
other allegations against Roberts that prosecutors and federal agents
have no interest in investigating. Funny how that works, isn't it? If
you're Paul Bergrin they find jailhouse snitches willing to lie, but
if you're Ritchie Roberts they look the other direction.
The next two witnesses that Bergrin
intended to call were permanently delayed by the US Marshal Service.
Both are currently federal prisoners and their testimony would have
undermined the testimony of government witness Abdul Williams. Syed
Rehman is currently in FCI Gilmer, in West Virginia, and Rahoo Drew
is at USP McCreary in Kentucky. Neither location is that far from
Newark, New Jersey, so I'm not clear on the problem with transporting
these witnesses. A brief proffer of their statements is on page 2:
Perhaps Judge Cavanaugh viewed any
further defense as unnecessary. The government did not make its case
at all from my viewpoint, but then I am reading all of the documents.
Oscar Cordova (or whatever his name really is) was the government's
prime witness - the self-proclaimed hitman that was obviously an
informant to Paul Bergrin and anyone with a brain - was a serious
fiasco for prosecutors. Can you imagine having no choice except to
bring your witness back two days later to admit to serious perjury
and confess to a criminal act of calling in a death threat against
himself?
I think that following the Oscar mess,
prosecutors were simply trying to save face. I would feel sorry for
them, except that we all know they are trying to put Bergrin in a
prison cell forever based on false testimony.
And so we shall wait for the
government's summation that will, undoubtedly, include a list of what
they will claim to have proved via witness testimony. Finally we will hear
Paul Bergrin's summation and then the jury will deliberate. Do I need
to tell you my thoughts on what the outcome will be? Well, I never
second guess jurors, so you're only going to hear the commentary.
No matter what the outcome is, I do
hope that no one from either side disrespects the jurors with
unwarranted comments. They were there and they heard every word that
the rest of us missed, they could look into the eyes of witnesses as
each testified, and it is their decision. You won't hear shit from me
no matter which direction it all goes except for a final post, of course.
If you want copies of any documents or
of the transcripts from the first trial, please do take a copy now.
All will be removed soon.
3 comments:
Why remove docs?
It's an old habit of mine... I don't have to remove them, but it's unlikely that anyone will want the memories online forever. This blog gets hundreds of views daily and anyone that wants copies can grab 'em. ;)
All docs are uploaded to my website and just linked here and they take-up space. I think law school professors should save copies and use as a teaching tool.
Vicky, that was another great post which highlights one of the fundamental problems in how the U.S. attorneys operate. Defense lawyers are duty-bound to zealously represent their clients by all available lawful means. Prosecutors, representing the sovereign, are supposed to prosecute, but not do so in the face of overwhelming exculpatory evidence. In fact, the situation has degenerated to such a point that prosecutors now feel obligated to prosecute by ANY means available, whether it be legal or not. These result-oriented prosecutions are nothing less than state sponsored terrorism.
Post a Comment