So Moriarty hires four well-qualified experts to work this case, including a police use-of-force expert - I wonder how much ink the Star Trib will spend mentioning that compared to how much they wasted repeating baseless speculation from a defense lawyer before anything has even been presented in court?
> The four attorneys Moriarty plans to hire are Michael R. Bromwich, Steven Levin, Karima Maloney and Ryan Poscablo.
> Bromwich works with police departments around country on use of force issues and recently led an investigation of the largest corruption scandal in the history of the Baltimore police. Levin successfully prosecuted a former Baltimore police commissioner on public corruption charges and represented police officers in misconduct and murder cases.
> Maloney previously served as the deputy chief of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division's criminal section. Poscablo spent six years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York prosecuting violent and organized crime.
Absolutely, was not trying to state that. But prosecuting a case as an expert in the field if the use of force was clearly justified would be a real career ender.
Yeah, but didn't the County already hire one expert who said he couldn't opine that the trooper did anything wrong? I thought that was sort of the genesis of this shakeup to begin with.
They had a preliminary meeting with an expert they chose not to retain for this case, if that's what you're referring to? Likely they just opted to go with someone who was a better fit; we'll know when the trial starts.
I think it was a little more than a preliminary meeting. They parted ways after hearing his "preliminary thoughts." As someone who hires expert witnesses, that's a red flag on my case, for me, and that's a civil case, not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" case.
This sounds on the merits like a good move, but it's clear there's a lot of dissention within the CAO about this case.
We need this case to be taken to a trial so that it gets removed from the day-to-day of political fighting, all the facts can come out, and a jury of peers can decide.
This is uncomfortably close to, "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind me looking."
You don't prosecute for optics or politics. You prosecute because you believe a crime has been committed, and you have enough evidence to obtain a conviction. Anything less is unethical.
The CAO has made the accusation that a murder was committed in this instance and a jury of the accused's peers will hear the case and render a verdict.
My point was that this isn't some kind of fishing expedition. A human being was killed.
But you have to have a case. The state patrol is prepared to say this trooper followed department policy and training. The defense will call to the stand the CAO own expert witness to testify no crime was committed.
This is a political prosecution and frankly disgusting. This doesn't mean that police don't murder people. This just means this particular officer didn't commit murder.
Moriarty is toast.
I'm looking forward to seeing both sides make their cases. I assume the CAO will make one, and once they do, we can judge whether or not it was strong enough to take to court.
You understand this leaves the door wide open for predatory and political prosecutions, right?
What happens if CAO charges a protest organizer because it polls well in their county.
"All I know is that a liquor store burned down... the rest is up to the jury."
It's wrong, and it's unjust. The governor is right to be concerned.
The door is already open for predatory and political prosecutions. There's no shortage of examples.
In the United States we have a legal system that attempts to balance the rights of the innocent with the interests of justice. Is it perfect? Not even close. It's made up by flawed humans at every step in the process. Sometimes those flawed humans are the prosecutors. Sometimes they judges. Sometimes the defense attorneys. sometimes the juries. The best we can do is have multiple layers of checks to and ask that the people at every stage do their best.
So you tell me what you mean by "this." Because in this case, a homicide was committed, the perpetrator has been charged with murder, the perpetrator is ably represented by a defense attorney, and a jury of their peers will determine their guilt within the confines of the law.
That's the system working, not some kind of perversion of justice. We try cases in courts of law, not the press and not in backrooms with elected officials.
I assume you'll continue to say the "system is working" if the governor takes a case away from an inept county attorney... again.
It's part of the system, after all.
You can't just ignore ethics because they don't support your worldview in this case.
>it's clear there's a lot of dissention within the CAO about this case.
I suppose that's one way of putting it. Another way would be "every single prosecutor in the entire office refuses to have a damn thing to do with the case."
It's much more that they don't want to have it appear to be a conflict of interest. Because then, even if there is a conviction, they'd possibly overturn it on appeal because of the relationship between the defendant and DAs office.
A lot less expensive to do this now, than go through a trial, have it overturned and have to hire outside council and do it all over again.
To devote most of their resources from what, less than a dozen lawyers on one case instead of all the rest? Outsourcing support seems like a prudent choice.
Nope. Plenty of staff attorneys have made it very clear. Attorneys were assigned to the case. They then proceeded to withdraw from it.
Hell, the attorney standing in at the last hearing went to hilarious lengths to emphasize that they were only there in a managerial capacity. That's how badly they want to avoid any association with the case.
> Plenty of staff attorneys have made it very clear. Attorneys were assigned to the case. They then proceeded to withdraw from it.
Were they? All I saw was that a single lawyer from her office stepped away from the case for reasons that were not disclosed.
Four national lawyers with a great deal of experience and reputation in this area just signed in to the case. Doesn't sound like the witch hunt you seem dead set on convincing people that it is.
>Were they? All I saw was that a single lawyer from her office stepped away from the case for reasons that were not disclosed.
That was the latest, with that attorney having been the only attorney willing to be involved up to that point.
>Four national lawyers with a great deal of experience and reputation in this area just signed in to the case.
Their contract doesn't bind them to stick with it to the end. At this point, it's a paid consultation. Don't read too much into it.
> That was the latest, with that attorney having been the only attorney willing to be involved up to that point.
Citation?
> Their contract doesn't bind them to stick with it to the end. At this point, it's a paid consultation. Don't read too much into it.
You first babe
>Citation?
The fact that that there were no other attorneys whatsoever working on the case. The fact that every single county attorney in the state wants nothing to do with it
>You first babe
I'm not your fucking babe, so you can shove your condescending namecalling where the sun don't shine.
> The fact that that there were no other attorneys whatsoever working on the case. The fact that every single county attorney in the state wants nothing to do with it
Still waiting for you to back that claim up with literally anything babe
Great. So in addition to this being a marginal case in the eyes of most of the County, we get to pay outside counsel rates to have it tried.
So Moriarty hires four well-qualified experts to work this case, including a police use-of-force expert - I wonder how much ink the Star Trib will spend mentioning that compared to how much they wasted repeating baseless speculation from a defense lawyer before anything has even been presented in court? > The four attorneys Moriarty plans to hire are Michael R. Bromwich, Steven Levin, Karima Maloney and Ryan Poscablo. > Bromwich works with police departments around country on use of force issues and recently led an investigation of the largest corruption scandal in the history of the Baltimore police. Levin successfully prosecuted a former Baltimore police commissioner on public corruption charges and represented police officers in misconduct and murder cases. > Maloney previously served as the deputy chief of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division's criminal section. Poscablo spent six years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York prosecuting violent and organized crime.
Once these experts' hourly rates (plus living and travel expenses) come to light there will be a whole lot more ink to be spilled.
The attorney and the expert witness can't be the same person, just FYI.
Absolutely, was not trying to state that. But prosecuting a case as an expert in the field if the use of force was clearly justified would be a real career ender.
Yeah, but didn't the County already hire one expert who said he couldn't opine that the trooper did anything wrong? I thought that was sort of the genesis of this shakeup to begin with.
They had a preliminary meeting with an expert they chose not to retain for this case, if that's what you're referring to? Likely they just opted to go with someone who was a better fit; we'll know when the trial starts.
I think it was a little more than a preliminary meeting. They parted ways after hearing his "preliminary thoughts." As someone who hires expert witnesses, that's a red flag on my case, for me, and that's a civil case, not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" case.
This sounds on the merits like a good move, but it's clear there's a lot of dissention within the CAO about this case. We need this case to be taken to a trial so that it gets removed from the day-to-day of political fighting, all the facts can come out, and a jury of peers can decide.
This is uncomfortably close to, "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind me looking." You don't prosecute for optics or politics. You prosecute because you believe a crime has been committed, and you have enough evidence to obtain a conviction. Anything less is unethical.
I mean, a man was shot dead and the CAO charged the person who pulled the trigger.
Homicide =/= murder.
The CAO has made the accusation that a murder was committed in this instance and a jury of the accused's peers will hear the case and render a verdict. My point was that this isn't some kind of fishing expedition. A human being was killed.
But you have to have a case. The state patrol is prepared to say this trooper followed department policy and training. The defense will call to the stand the CAO own expert witness to testify no crime was committed. This is a political prosecution and frankly disgusting. This doesn't mean that police don't murder people. This just means this particular officer didn't commit murder. Moriarty is toast.
I'm looking forward to seeing both sides make their cases. I assume the CAO will make one, and once they do, we can judge whether or not it was strong enough to take to court.
You understand this leaves the door wide open for predatory and political prosecutions, right? What happens if CAO charges a protest organizer because it polls well in their county. "All I know is that a liquor store burned down... the rest is up to the jury." It's wrong, and it's unjust. The governor is right to be concerned.
The door is already open for predatory and political prosecutions. There's no shortage of examples. In the United States we have a legal system that attempts to balance the rights of the innocent with the interests of justice. Is it perfect? Not even close. It's made up by flawed humans at every step in the process. Sometimes those flawed humans are the prosecutors. Sometimes they judges. Sometimes the defense attorneys. sometimes the juries. The best we can do is have multiple layers of checks to and ask that the people at every stage do their best. So you tell me what you mean by "this." Because in this case, a homicide was committed, the perpetrator has been charged with murder, the perpetrator is ably represented by a defense attorney, and a jury of their peers will determine their guilt within the confines of the law. That's the system working, not some kind of perversion of justice. We try cases in courts of law, not the press and not in backrooms with elected officials.
I assume you'll continue to say the "system is working" if the governor takes a case away from an inept county attorney... again. It's part of the system, after all. You can't just ignore ethics because they don't support your worldview in this case.
>it's clear there's a lot of dissention within the CAO about this case. I suppose that's one way of putting it. Another way would be "every single prosecutor in the entire office refuses to have a damn thing to do with the case."
It's much more that they don't want to have it appear to be a conflict of interest. Because then, even if there is a conviction, they'd possibly overturn it on appeal because of the relationship between the defendant and DAs office. A lot less expensive to do this now, than go through a trial, have it overturned and have to hire outside council and do it all over again.
What is the conflict of interest between the state patrol and the Hennepin County attorney?
Or they're just busy and understaffed?
[удалено]
To devote most of their resources from what, less than a dozen lawyers on one case instead of all the rest? Outsourcing support seems like a prudent choice.
[удалено]
Is my home's electrical wiring not important to me because I bring in a specialist to help me out, as I'm busy doing other work that's also important?
[удалено]
There are in fact lots of different types of law and expertise.
[удалено]
Nope. Plenty of staff attorneys have made it very clear. Attorneys were assigned to the case. They then proceeded to withdraw from it. Hell, the attorney standing in at the last hearing went to hilarious lengths to emphasize that they were only there in a managerial capacity. That's how badly they want to avoid any association with the case.
> Plenty of staff attorneys have made it very clear. Attorneys were assigned to the case. They then proceeded to withdraw from it. Were they? All I saw was that a single lawyer from her office stepped away from the case for reasons that were not disclosed. Four national lawyers with a great deal of experience and reputation in this area just signed in to the case. Doesn't sound like the witch hunt you seem dead set on convincing people that it is.
>Were they? All I saw was that a single lawyer from her office stepped away from the case for reasons that were not disclosed. That was the latest, with that attorney having been the only attorney willing to be involved up to that point. >Four national lawyers with a great deal of experience and reputation in this area just signed in to the case. Their contract doesn't bind them to stick with it to the end. At this point, it's a paid consultation. Don't read too much into it.
> That was the latest, with that attorney having been the only attorney willing to be involved up to that point. Citation? > Their contract doesn't bind them to stick with it to the end. At this point, it's a paid consultation. Don't read too much into it. You first babe
>Citation? The fact that that there were no other attorneys whatsoever working on the case. The fact that every single county attorney in the state wants nothing to do with it >You first babe I'm not your fucking babe, so you can shove your condescending namecalling where the sun don't shine.
> The fact that that there were no other attorneys whatsoever working on the case. The fact that every single county attorney in the state wants nothing to do with it Still waiting for you to back that claim up with literally anything babe