Anchorage—
Given that I did not attend the hearing, the best way to present the human side of what happened at Tuesday’s hearing in the Ted Stevens case is to offer extended quotations from the accounts of three sets of reporters who were there:
John Bresnahan in Politico.com:
When the dismissal was announced, some Stevens family members sobbed audibly, and Stevens gave a raised-fist salute to the audience. There was applause in the courtroom as the hearing concluded, and Stevens was greeted by friends, including Richard Ben-Veniste, a prominent D.C. lawyer.
Stevens himself was more grateful than bitter in his courtroom comments.
"Without your experience and vigilance, the truth would never be known," Stevens told Judge Sullivan. "I've had a long career. I served the United States for many years. Until recently, my faith in the criminal system, the judicial system, was unwavering. But what some members of the prosecution team did nearly destroyed that faith. Their conduct has consequences for me that that they will never realize and can never be reversed."
Stevens added: "Today ... my faith has been restored. ... Your actions gave me new hope that others may be spared of similar miscarriages of justice."
-----
Mike Scarcella and Joe Palazzolo, Legal Times:
Stevens individually thanked the [new team of] prosecutors at their table, shaking their hands. [Chief Stevens defense lawyer] Brendan Sullivan praised the new team of lawyers. “But for honest prosecutors, the system would not work,” Sullivan said. He added that the prosecutors knew a loss in the case would be a blight on their careers, and so they flouted the rules to ensure they would win. “The fear of loss drove them to do what they did,” he said.
-----
Nedra Pickler and Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press, via Fairbanks Daily News-Miner:
...Stevens gave what amounted to the election victory speech he never had a chance to give. Standing at the courtroom lectern wearing a pin of the U.S. and Alaska flags on his sweater, he recounted his career in government - from flying planes in World War II to serving as U.S. attorney to his storied career in the Senate.
He thanked his friends, his supporters and his wife. And he vowed to push his friends in the Senate for tough new laws on prosecutorial misconduct.
Then, with the prosecution team feeling the scrutiny that Stevens felt for years, he smiled, posed for pictures with his family outside the courthouse and said:
"I'm going to enjoy this wonderful day."
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
What Happened, What Did It Look Like, and What Does It Mean? (Part One)
Anchorage—
The trial judge dismissed the Ted Stevens case as expected, but went on to blast the trial prosecutors’ failures in turning over evidence and to order up his own criminal investigation into that failure.
By all reports, it was quite a hearing yesterday. I was thousands of miles away from that hearing, so what follows is mostly based on the reporting of the Anchorage Daily News, the New York Times, Politico.com, the Alaska Public Radio Network, National Public Radio, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.
Let’s take the announcement, the atmospherics, and the ramifications in order.
The Judge Drops Another Bomb on the Shellshocked Justice Department
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan announced that he had asked a private attorney to investigate the failures of the trial prosecutors to turn over evidence to the defense as legally required. That attorney will be Henry “Hank” Schuelke, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who served as a prosecutor and a judge in the Army. (More on Schuelke in a later post.)
Judge Sullivan blistered the Department of Justice for its work in the case, stating that “In 25 years on the bench, I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case.”
The judge listed 10 specific instances of apparent missteps in the handling of evidence and witnesses by the trial prosecutors. (The best catalogue of the judge’s list is in the Anchorage Daily News, which has the most comprehensive coverage of the hearing.)
This selection of a special prosecutor by a trial judge to investigate charges of criminal contempt of court is extraordinary but explicitly allowed under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. As the New York Times pointed out, Schuelke will operate under the court’s authority and will gather evidence before recommending to the court whether to seek charges against six named prosecutors.
The six prosecutors under this newly announced probe include the five government lawyers who worked on the Ted Stevens trial: Public Integrity Section trial attorneys Nicholas Marsh and Edward Sullivan and Alaska-based Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joe Bottini and James Goeke. The other two lawyers under investigation are William Welch and Brenda Morris, who are the top two attorneys in the Public Integrity Section, which ran the investigation. Morris did double duty as the lead trial prosecutor as well as the Section's No. 2 lawyer.
The judge said “I have not pre-judged these attorneys for their culpability, and I hope the record will find no intentional obstruction of justice.”
Judge Sullivan's announcement yesterday means that there are two investigations of the Stevens trial prosecutors now—the one run for the last six months by the Department of Justice's Office of Public Responsibility (OPR) and the new one conducted by Schuelke. (The Anchorage Daily News also reported that the judge also stated that he would refer a complaint to federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C. that key prosecution witness Bill Allen's attorney signaled him to answer during Allen's testimony. Allen's attorney has denied the allegation.)
The judge’s blistering denunciation of Department of Justice failures in providing discovery the case of a federal detainee at Guantanamo Bay as well as that of the former 40-year U.S. Senator. The Associated Press reported that “During Tuesday’s hearing, Sullivan read a primer on criminal procedure, the kind of rudimentary lecture students normally receive during their first year of law school.” (Via Scott Horton’s blog in Harper’s magazine.)
Judge Sullivan’s denunciations and announcement of a special prosecutor to investigate prosecutors may affect a broader range of cases than just that of Ted Stevens. Politico.com reports, for example, that federal judges are increasingly “fed up” with what they see as prosecutorial misconduct and may be less likely in the future to accept representations of government attorneys in criminal cases.
Next: What was it like in the courtroom?
The trial judge dismissed the Ted Stevens case as expected, but went on to blast the trial prosecutors’ failures in turning over evidence and to order up his own criminal investigation into that failure.
By all reports, it was quite a hearing yesterday. I was thousands of miles away from that hearing, so what follows is mostly based on the reporting of the Anchorage Daily News, the New York Times, Politico.com, the Alaska Public Radio Network, National Public Radio, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.
Let’s take the announcement, the atmospherics, and the ramifications in order.
The Judge Drops Another Bomb on the Shellshocked Justice Department
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan announced that he had asked a private attorney to investigate the failures of the trial prosecutors to turn over evidence to the defense as legally required. That attorney will be Henry “Hank” Schuelke, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who served as a prosecutor and a judge in the Army. (More on Schuelke in a later post.)
Judge Sullivan blistered the Department of Justice for its work in the case, stating that “In 25 years on the bench, I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case.”
The judge listed 10 specific instances of apparent missteps in the handling of evidence and witnesses by the trial prosecutors. (The best catalogue of the judge’s list is in the Anchorage Daily News, which has the most comprehensive coverage of the hearing.)
This selection of a special prosecutor by a trial judge to investigate charges of criminal contempt of court is extraordinary but explicitly allowed under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. As the New York Times pointed out, Schuelke will operate under the court’s authority and will gather evidence before recommending to the court whether to seek charges against six named prosecutors.
The six prosecutors under this newly announced probe include the five government lawyers who worked on the Ted Stevens trial: Public Integrity Section trial attorneys Nicholas Marsh and Edward Sullivan and Alaska-based Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joe Bottini and James Goeke. The other two lawyers under investigation are William Welch and Brenda Morris, who are the top two attorneys in the Public Integrity Section, which ran the investigation. Morris did double duty as the lead trial prosecutor as well as the Section's No. 2 lawyer.
The judge said “I have not pre-judged these attorneys for their culpability, and I hope the record will find no intentional obstruction of justice.”
Judge Sullivan's announcement yesterday means that there are two investigations of the Stevens trial prosecutors now—the one run for the last six months by the Department of Justice's Office of Public Responsibility (OPR) and the new one conducted by Schuelke. (The Anchorage Daily News also reported that the judge also stated that he would refer a complaint to federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C. that key prosecution witness Bill Allen's attorney signaled him to answer during Allen's testimony. Allen's attorney has denied the allegation.)
The judge’s blistering denunciation of Department of Justice failures in providing discovery the case of a federal detainee at Guantanamo Bay as well as that of the former 40-year U.S. Senator. The Associated Press reported that “During Tuesday’s hearing, Sullivan read a primer on criminal procedure, the kind of rudimentary lecture students normally receive during their first year of law school.” (Via Scott Horton’s blog in Harper’s magazine.)
Judge Sullivan’s denunciations and announcement of a special prosecutor to investigate prosecutors may affect a broader range of cases than just that of Ted Stevens. Politico.com reports, for example, that federal judges are increasingly “fed up” with what they see as prosecutorial misconduct and may be less likely in the future to accept representations of government attorneys in criminal cases.
Next: What was it like in the courtroom?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
It Was Ted Stevens' Day
Anchorage—
Looking over the photographs of the smiling faces of Ted Stevens’ daughters surrounding him as he left court with the cloud of prosecution removed from him, I saw what a happy family looks like in public.
I was also struck by the legal work that helped free the former Senator. As I wrote on this blog back on October 5, Washingtonian magazine said in 2002 that Stevens' chief lawyer Brendan Sullivan’s counterattacks against the government “have put more prosecutors in jail than their indictments have put away his clients.”
Ted Stevens is of course not going to jail now, and his trial prosecutors have now got to lawyer up with a big legal cloud over their heads. And they can’t get Williams & Connolly to defend them, which had 13 lawyers in court to celebrate their victory today.
More tomorrow.
Looking over the photographs of the smiling faces of Ted Stevens’ daughters surrounding him as he left court with the cloud of prosecution removed from him, I saw what a happy family looks like in public.
I was also struck by the legal work that helped free the former Senator. As I wrote on this blog back on October 5, Washingtonian magazine said in 2002 that Stevens' chief lawyer Brendan Sullivan’s counterattacks against the government “have put more prosecutors in jail than their indictments have put away his clients.”
Ted Stevens is of course not going to jail now, and his trial prosecutors have now got to lawyer up with a big legal cloud over their heads. And they can’t get Williams & Connolly to defend them, which had 13 lawyers in court to celebrate their victory today.
More tomorrow.
Monday, April 6, 2009
I'll Be on the Radio Tomorrow (Tuesday)
Anchorage—
I’ll be on Alaska Public Radio Network’s call-in program “Talk of Alaska” from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. tomorrow (Tuesday) talking about the Ted Stevens case and the government’s abandonment of the prosecution. I was also interviewed this morning by CNN radio for a story that will apparently run on that radio network tomorrow morning.
I’ll be on Alaska Public Radio Network’s call-in program “Talk of Alaska” from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. tomorrow (Tuesday) talking about the Ted Stevens case and the government’s abandonment of the prosecution. I was also interviewed this morning by CNN radio for a story that will apparently run on that radio network tomorrow morning.
Really Final Linkorama of Reactions to Government's Abandonment of Ted Stevens Case
Anchorage—
Here’s the truly last roundup—I can’t help it if the editorialists take a while to get to commenting on the story:
New York Times editorial entitled “Mr. Holder and the Stevens case” (“Given the flagrant partisanship of the Bush Justice Department, it is especially reassuring to see Mr. Holder ignore party lines to do the right thing by Mr. Stevens.”) — www.nytimes.com at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/opinion/03fri3.html
Philadelphia Inquirer editorial entitled “Stevens Case[:] The right course” (“…Holder's decision doesn't necessarily discount the initial reasons for bringing charges….But the misconduct by federal prosecutors renders moot the question of whether Stevens was culpable - the heart of this case.”) – www.philly.com at http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090403_Editorial__Stevens_Case.html
Anchorage Daily News editorial “Case dismissed[:] Stevens, Alaskans ill-served by prosecution's shoddy work” (“Ending the case against Ted Stevens was the right move, but that means Alaskans will never get an impartial evaluation of the charges against him.”) – www.adn.com at http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/747811.html
CQ staff, “Senators Relieved to See Stevens Case Dismissed” (“In essence, the Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute the case gave Stevens ‘a get-out-of-jail free card,’ [George Washington University law professor Jonathan] Turley said, adding that it was likely a jury would have convicted Stevens even without the evidence that defense attorneys have called into question.”) – www.cqpolitics.com at http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003090161
Devlin Barrett (Associated Press Writer), “Justice Dept Under Microscope After Stevens Trial” (“The FBI has 2,500 pending corruption investigations across the country, and whether the targets are lawmakers or suspected crooked government inspectors, prosecutors may be more cautious in bringing charges after the Stevens debacle.”) -- http://www.koco.com/money/19094079/detail.html
Republican-oriented blogger suggests that concerns about bringing more attention to overzealous prosecutors led to Department of Justice’s abandonment of the case – Eric Florack, “Holder Voids Case Against Ted Stevens. But Why?” at http://bitsblog.florack.us/?p=18793
Blogger “with no reasonable doubt that Stevens was guilty of the crimes with which he was charged” agrees that prosecutorial errors made the Attorney General’s call the right one (“Because we have an adversarial system, lawyers on both sides treat the case as a game, stretching the spirit if not the letter of the law as necessary. Prosecutors, acting as agents of the state, are supposed to be more cognizant of justice — defense attorneys are supposed to get their guy off even if they’re sure he’s guilty, whereas prosecutors are expected to stop prosecuting if they find they’ve got the wrong guy — but it often doesn’t work out that way.”) – James Joyner, “Ted Stevens Conviction Voided,” in www.outsidethebeltway.com at http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/ted_stevens_conviction_voided_/
Well-known conservative blogger says that Attorney General bowed to the inevitable given the prosecutors’ apparent misconduct (“Of course, none of this changes the fact that Stevens had oil-company lobbyists remodeling his house and hid that fact from the Senate. The fact that prosecutors engaged in serious misconduct does not make Stevens clean. It just makes him free.”) – Ed Morrissey, “Ted Stevens off the hook for good,” in www.hotair.com at http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/01/ted-stevens-off-the-hook-for-good/
Lawyer/blogger says “The really big decision here isn't just the dismissal of the indictment, but also the decision not to start the case over again with a new prosecution. In light of Stevens' age, and his exit from office in November, you can see why that makes sense. But it also means that the probable crime Stevens committed—and let's not forget, there was pretty good evidence that he accepted $250,000 in unreported gifts and renovations to his ski homes—goes into a small black hole of politician wrongdoing with no redress.” – Emily Bazelon, “Eric Holder’s Bold Move in the Ted Stevens Case,” www.slate.com at http://slate.msn.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2009/04/01/eric-holder-s-bold-move-in-the-ted-stevens-case.aspx
Conservative commentator and long-time Alaska journalist attacks the prosecution (“The federal government's unconstitutional and outrageous conduct has cost Stevens his reputation, his seat of 40 years in the United States Senate -- and immeasurable personal grief. Its true cost to Alaska -- in terms of leadership and effective representation in the Senate and a stolen election -- remains to be seen.”) – Paul Jenkins, “We deserve the truth behind the prosecution of Stevens,” www.adn.com at http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/story/748602.html
Here’s the truly last roundup—I can’t help it if the editorialists take a while to get to commenting on the story:
New York Times editorial entitled “Mr. Holder and the Stevens case” (“Given the flagrant partisanship of the Bush Justice Department, it is especially reassuring to see Mr. Holder ignore party lines to do the right thing by Mr. Stevens.”) — www.nytimes.com at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/opinion/03fri3.html
Philadelphia Inquirer editorial entitled “Stevens Case[:] The right course” (“…Holder's decision doesn't necessarily discount the initial reasons for bringing charges….But the misconduct by federal prosecutors renders moot the question of whether Stevens was culpable - the heart of this case.”) – www.philly.com at http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090403_Editorial__Stevens_Case.html
Anchorage Daily News editorial “Case dismissed[:] Stevens, Alaskans ill-served by prosecution's shoddy work” (“Ending the case against Ted Stevens was the right move, but that means Alaskans will never get an impartial evaluation of the charges against him.”) – www.adn.com at http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/747811.html
CQ staff, “Senators Relieved to See Stevens Case Dismissed” (“In essence, the Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute the case gave Stevens ‘a get-out-of-jail free card,’ [George Washington University law professor Jonathan] Turley said, adding that it was likely a jury would have convicted Stevens even without the evidence that defense attorneys have called into question.”) – www.cqpolitics.com at http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003090161
Devlin Barrett (Associated Press Writer), “Justice Dept Under Microscope After Stevens Trial” (“The FBI has 2,500 pending corruption investigations across the country, and whether the targets are lawmakers or suspected crooked government inspectors, prosecutors may be more cautious in bringing charges after the Stevens debacle.”) -- http://www.koco.com/money/19094079/detail.html
Republican-oriented blogger suggests that concerns about bringing more attention to overzealous prosecutors led to Department of Justice’s abandonment of the case – Eric Florack, “Holder Voids Case Against Ted Stevens. But Why?” at http://bitsblog.florack.us/?p=18793
Blogger “with no reasonable doubt that Stevens was guilty of the crimes with which he was charged” agrees that prosecutorial errors made the Attorney General’s call the right one (“Because we have an adversarial system, lawyers on both sides treat the case as a game, stretching the spirit if not the letter of the law as necessary. Prosecutors, acting as agents of the state, are supposed to be more cognizant of justice — defense attorneys are supposed to get their guy off even if they’re sure he’s guilty, whereas prosecutors are expected to stop prosecuting if they find they’ve got the wrong guy — but it often doesn’t work out that way.”) – James Joyner, “Ted Stevens Conviction Voided,” in www.outsidethebeltway.com at http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/ted_stevens_conviction_voided_/
Well-known conservative blogger says that Attorney General bowed to the inevitable given the prosecutors’ apparent misconduct (“Of course, none of this changes the fact that Stevens had oil-company lobbyists remodeling his house and hid that fact from the Senate. The fact that prosecutors engaged in serious misconduct does not make Stevens clean. It just makes him free.”) – Ed Morrissey, “Ted Stevens off the hook for good,” in www.hotair.com at http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/01/ted-stevens-off-the-hook-for-good/
Lawyer/blogger says “The really big decision here isn't just the dismissal of the indictment, but also the decision not to start the case over again with a new prosecution. In light of Stevens' age, and his exit from office in November, you can see why that makes sense. But it also means that the probable crime Stevens committed—and let's not forget, there was pretty good evidence that he accepted $250,000 in unreported gifts and renovations to his ski homes—goes into a small black hole of politician wrongdoing with no redress.” – Emily Bazelon, “Eric Holder’s Bold Move in the Ted Stevens Case,” www.slate.com at http://slate.msn.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2009/04/01/eric-holder-s-bold-move-in-the-ted-stevens-case.aspx
Conservative commentator and long-time Alaska journalist attacks the prosecution (“The federal government's unconstitutional and outrageous conduct has cost Stevens his reputation, his seat of 40 years in the United States Senate -- and immeasurable personal grief. Its true cost to Alaska -- in terms of leadership and effective representation in the Senate and a stolen election -- remains to be seen.”) – Paul Jenkins, “We deserve the truth behind the prosecution of Stevens,” www.adn.com at http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/story/748602.html
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Link City 3: Final Roundup of Reactions to Government’s Abandonment of Stevens Case
Anchorage, Alaska—
USA Today editorial criticizes both the prosecutors and the defendant in the Ted Stevens trial – “Stevens case leaves taint on prosecutors, ex-senator,” in www.usatoday.com at http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/04/stevens-case-leaves-taint-on-prosecutors-ex-senator.html
Gov. Sarah Palin’s comments on the Department of Justice’s decision attacked as off-key and off-base – Steve Aufrecht, “And then there is Sarah Palin,” http://whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com at
http://whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com/2009/04/and-then-there-is-sarah-palin.html
[Steve Aufrecht’s blog is worth a regular read, whether it covers the Alaska public corruption trials or his adventures while visiting Thailand.]
USA Today editorial criticizes both the prosecutors and the defendant in the Ted Stevens trial – “Stevens case leaves taint on prosecutors, ex-senator,” in www.usatoday.com at http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/04/stevens-case-leaves-taint-on-prosecutors-ex-senator.html
Gov. Sarah Palin’s comments on the Department of Justice’s decision attacked as off-key and off-base – Steve Aufrecht, “And then there is Sarah Palin,” http://whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com at
http://whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com/2009/04/and-then-there-is-sarah-palin.html
[Steve Aufrecht’s blog is worth a regular read, whether it covers the Alaska public corruption trials or his adventures while visiting Thailand.]
Link City 2—More Reactions Roundup
Anchorage, Alaska—
Attorneys discuss the effects of the dropping of Ted Stevens case on “POLAR PEN” and on the Stevens trial prosecutors ("‘The question in this case is whether the prosecutors were overzealous or overwhelmed‘") – Lisa Demer, “Other cases may be affected,” Anchorage Daily News at http://www.adn.com/ted-stevens/story/745183.html
There’s a split between how Alaskans view the government’s abandonment of the case versus how people in the rest of the country see the decision – Liz Halloran, “Some Alaskans See Stevens As Good As Vindicated,” www.npr.org at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102610818
Noted commentator suggests that Ted Stevens both had a lack of criminal intent and a great record of achievement for Alaskans – Michael Barone, “Former Senator Ted Stevens Deserves Praise from Alaskans,” www.usnews.com at http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2009/04/02/former-senator-ted-stevens-deserves-praise-from-alaskans.html
Washington Post editorial on abandonment of case (“The Stevens Case: Its shocking reversal says more about the Justice Department than about the former senator.”) -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040102976.html?hpid=topnews
Blog post arguing that government’s abandonment of case should not be interpreted as exoneration of Ted Stevens – Josh Marshall, “Clean Bill of Health?” at www.talkingpointsmemo.com at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/clean_bill_of_health.php
Catalogue of controversies over prosecutorial misconduct in Ted Stevens case – “Prosecutorial missteps from trial of former Sen. Ted Stevens,” Los Angeles Times at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-stevens-highlights2-2009apr02,0,6335291.story
Attorneys discuss the effects of the dropping of Ted Stevens case on “POLAR PEN” and on the Stevens trial prosecutors ("‘The question in this case is whether the prosecutors were overzealous or overwhelmed‘") – Lisa Demer, “Other cases may be affected,” Anchorage Daily News at http://www.adn.com/ted-stevens/story/745183.html
There’s a split between how Alaskans view the government’s abandonment of the case versus how people in the rest of the country see the decision – Liz Halloran, “Some Alaskans See Stevens As Good As Vindicated,” www.npr.org at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102610818
Noted commentator suggests that Ted Stevens both had a lack of criminal intent and a great record of achievement for Alaskans – Michael Barone, “Former Senator Ted Stevens Deserves Praise from Alaskans,” www.usnews.com at http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2009/04/02/former-senator-ted-stevens-deserves-praise-from-alaskans.html
Washington Post editorial on abandonment of case (“The Stevens Case: Its shocking reversal says more about the Justice Department than about the former senator.”) -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040102976.html?hpid=topnews
Blog post arguing that government’s abandonment of case should not be interpreted as exoneration of Ted Stevens – Josh Marshall, “Clean Bill of Health?” at www.talkingpointsmemo.com at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/clean_bill_of_health.php
Catalogue of controversies over prosecutorial misconduct in Ted Stevens case – “Prosecutorial missteps from trial of former Sen. Ted Stevens,” Los Angeles Times at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-stevens-highlights2-2009apr02,0,6335291.story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
