I don't think you understand what 'presumption of innocence' means.
Okay. The public is where jurors are pulled from. If the public has suspended the idea that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, it doesn't bode well.
In this case, it was the prosecutors who suspended it, and that's what I am talking about. Posters in this thread don't seem to care that the state dropped the idea of the presumption if innocence by withholding strong evidence of Steven's innocence.
In Allen's interview, that was withheld from the defense, Ted Stevens apparently asked for a bill for the repairs. If that's true, then there is no case, and the prosecution knew there was no case.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ed-ex-sen-ted-stevens/
**********
Holder said he would not seek a new trial.
"
After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial. In light of this conclusion, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case, I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial," Holder said in a statement released shortly after the motion was filed Wednesday.
Holder reportedly decided Tuesday to dismiss the original indictment rather than proceed to more hearings that might embarrass the department.
"Given what has happened in this case, it's not surprising" that charges against Stevens are being dropped, a source close to the case told FOX News.
Stevens' attorneys claimed the government "disregarded the Constitution" by going through with the prosecution but praised both Holder, the new prosecutorial team and Judge Emmett G. Sullivan for demonstrating integrity in the case.
"The misconduct of government prosecutors, and one or more FBI agents, was stunning. Not only did the government fail to disclose evidence of innocence, but instead intentionally hid that evidence and created false evidence that they provided to the defense," said attorneys Brendan V. Sullivan Jr. and Robert M. Cary.
"Had Judge Sullivan accepted the word of government prosecutors as is done often in our courts, the extraordinary misconduct would never have been uncovered, and the trial verdict might have survived appellate review. Judge Sullivan prevented such a tragic outcome. ...
Attorney General Eric Holder, too, should be commended. He is a pillar of integrity in the legal community, and his actions today prove it," they said.
The motion says the Department of Justice only "recently" discovered that Bill Allen -- the prosecution's star witness and an oil executive whose former company, Veco Corp., paid for some of the improvements to Stevens' home in Alaska -- was interviewed on April 15, 2008, but the defense never knew about it.
The motion states that "no memorandum of interview or agent notes" were written after the interview and that a response from Allen regarding a note dated Oct. 6, 2002, was inconsistent with his testimony during trial.
Thus, the motion says, "this information could have been used by the defendant [during trial] to cross-examine Bill Allen and in arguments to the jury."
In the motion, the Justice Department says: "Given the facts of this particular case, the government believes that granting a new trial is in the interest of justice," but, "the government has further determined that, based on the totality of circumstances and in the interest of justice, it will not seek a new trial."
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she was happy with the news, but troubled by the implication.
"I was pleased with the news that the Justice Department will drop all charges against Senator Ted Stevens, but I am deeply disturbed that the government can ruin a man's career and then say 'never mind.' There is nothing that will ever compensate for the loss of his reputation or leadership to the State of Alaska," she said.
, but he is in fact innocent and doesn't need to act as if.
Facebook
Twitter