by TChris

It's good to be a CEO, even if it occasionally means a little prison time.

Fog Cutter Capital Group on Friday gave Andrew Wiederhorn, its prison-bound chief executive officer, a deal perhaps unprecedented in the post-Enron era of corporate reform: a continued position atop the company's organization chart with full salary even as he spends 18 months in federal prison.

"Full salary" means $350K a year, on top of a $2 million "leave of absence" payment and a bonus to be named later. The $2 million matches the restitution that Wiederhorn agreed to pay to the people he helped swindle.

Fog Cutter's board of directors, charged with looking out for the company's shareholders, are doing a good job of looking after Wiederhorn and his family and friends, who control 60 percent of the company. The other shareholders can't be pleased to see their stock losing value in response to the decision to keep a prisoner in his corporate position -- a decision made no less disturbing by the hiring of Wiederhorn's father-in-law as co-CEO.

The board members have close ties to Wiederhorn, ties that apparently motivate their belief that Wiederhorn should be rewarded for his dedicated (albeit illegal) efforts on behalf of the company. The minority stockholders should consider a lawsuit against the rogues who are placing their own interests (and Wiederhorn's) ahead of the shareholders.'

by TChris

Kevin Cooper's effort to prove his innocence and avoid execution took a step forward as U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff ordered DNA testing on hairs found in the clenched hand of a murder victim. If the hairs don't belong to any of the victims or to Cooper, it would be reasonable to infer that they belong to the actual killer, as Cooper contends. Prior TalkLeft coverage of Cooper's case is collected here.

The judge also set a tentative date to hear evidence in support of Cooper's argument that prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense at his trial.

The hearing later this month will deal with statements from several patrons of a bar near the [victims'] home who said San Bernardino sheriff's deputies were called to kick out three disorderly patrons with bloody clothes on the night of the killings.

Did our soldiers, intelligence officers or American contractors commit war crimes at Abu Ghraib? The High Commissioner for Human Rights, the U.N.'s top human rights watchdog, says it's at least a possibility:

The United Nations' top human rights watchdog warned yesterday that prisoner abuses committed by US forces in Iraq could constitute war crimes and called for "full accountability" of those responsible. In a keenly awaited report on the human rights situation in occupied Iraq, Bertrand Ramcharan, the acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the ill-treatment of detainees in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison and other US-run detention centres "might be designated as war crimes by a competent tribunal".

Next weekend is the 10th anniversary of the death of Nicole Simpson. O.J., who was acquitted of the murder but found liable in civil court for her "wrongful death" is giving interviews. He maintains his innocence and asserts he was convicted by the media.

We are well aware that most people in this country believe OJ was guilty and got off due to great defense lawyers, not-so-great prosecutors, and the race card. We're not one of those people. We followed both trials very closely, know many of the lawyers involved, and have never been convinced that O.J. killed his wife or asked anyone else to kill his wife.

Brandon Mayfield is the Oregon lawyer arrested and held in detention for two weeks due to an erroneous fingerprint match by the FBI. The FBI has apologized to Mayfield, but Spanish forensic experts are still blaming the FBI for their insistence that they were right about Mayfield's fingerprint being on a bag linked to the Spain train bombers when they were wrong:

...in interviews this week, Spanish officials vehemently denied ever backing up that assessment, saying they had told American law enforcement officials from the start, after their own tests, that the match was negative. The Spanish officials said their American counterparts relentlessly pressed their case anyway, explaining away stark proof of a flawed link — including what the Spanish described as tell-tale forensic signs — and seemingly refusing to accept the notion that they were mistaken.

"They had a justification for everything," said Pedro Luis Melida Lledo, head of the fingerprint unit for the Spanish National Police, whose team analyzed the prints in question and met with the Americans on April 21. "But I just couldn't see it." The Spaniards, who continued to examine the fingerprints, eventually made their own match, to an Algerian citizen, whom they then arrested.

All of our Mayfield coverage is accessible here.

The Judge in the Kobe Bryant case today issued an order (pdf.) directing the prosecution to show cause why they haven't complied with his latest order regarding DNA testing--and to establish why sanctions shouldn't be imposed .

Because the DNA testing is so critical, Bryant defense attorneys Pamela Mackey and Hal Haddon have requested that their DNA expert, Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, be present at DNA testing done by the prosecution. Ruckriegle granted that request in early May and said that a defense expert should be allowed to view the prosecution testing. Prosecutors assured the defense that their expert could be present.

But earlier this week, Mackey and Haddon said they were notified by letter that the prosecution had chosen, in direct violation of Ruckriegle's order, a lab that won't permit their expert to witness the prosecution DNA testing. On Wednesday, they informed Ruckriegle of the violation and asked that he find out why the violation was occurring. And today, Ruckriegle gave prosecutors until Tuesday to tell him why they failed to select a laboratory which would permit the defense expert to be present. He also asked them to show why he shouldn't impose sanctions.

We note that Kobe's lawyers didn't ask for sanctions, the Judge acted on his own initiative in asking why they shouldn't be imposed.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out a $959 million judgment in favor of Americans tortured while POW's in Iraq during the first Gulf War:

An appeals court panel threw out a $959 million verdict Friday for U.S. prisoners of war who say they were tortured by the Iraqi military during the 1991 Gulf War, ruling Congress never authorized such lawsuits against foreign governments.

Background here.

Vice President Dick Cheney has also consulted outside counsel in the Valerie Plame grand jury leak investigation, says John Dean.

Suffice it to say that whatever the meaning of Bush's decision to talk with private counsel about the Valerie Plame leak, the matter has taken a more ominous turn with Bush's action. It has only become more portentous because now Dick Cheney has also hired a lawyer for himself, suggesting both men may have known more than they let on. Clearly, the investigation is heading toward a culmination of some sort. And it should be interesting.

The statement released by Cheney's office is as follows, according to the New York Times:

In answer to a reporter's question, Mr. Cheney's spokesman, Kevin Kellems, issued this statement: "Terrence O'Donnell, partner at Williams & Connolly, has been the vice president's personal attorney for several years. He has consulted Mr. O'Donnell on many matters since coming to the White House. Were the vice president to seek legal counsel on any issue, Mr. O'Donnell is the man he would go to. Given the fact that the Wilson case is currently under investigation, our office is not commenting further on the matter."

John Dean also says there are Serious Implications Of President Bush's Hiring A Personal Outside Counsel For The Valerie Plame Investigation :

by TChris

There’s often a cozy relationship between prosecutors and the police -- so cozy that some prosecutors may be disinclined to investigate allegations that the police use excessive force when making arrests. That may be the case in El Paso, Texas, where more than 1,800 complaints of excessive force over the last five years led to the dismissal of only five officers, and the resignation of two more.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union say the investigations are overdue. "If you are a police officer in this town, you can violate criminal rights left and right and not get prosecuted," said Ed Hernandez, who with his wife, Maria, represents several plaintiffs.

Two “rarely used State Courts of Inquiry” are asking whether the district attorney and the police department “conspired to shield officers accused of brutalizing people in at least six cases.” One accusation (apparently substantiated by medical records) involves a teenager who says she was sexually assaulted by two El Paso officers. They remained free while she went to jail. Others who complained of brutality say that the police stalked them in retaliation for their complaints.

The investigation may extend to concerns raised by a former assistant police chief about the possible infiltration of the police department by Mexican drug cartels.

A collateral point demonstrates that the justice system isn’t working well in El Paso:

[The district attorney] defended an unusual arrangement, which critics call unconstitutional, that has his office rather than a magistrate setting bail for many defendants.

No need for separation of powers in El Paso. The DA is already acting as a judge by setting bail. Why not just let the DA act as jury and impose a sentence after finding guilt?

Here's great post--The Grass Wasn't Greener-- written by a computer programmer, writer, and father of six, who was the tenant of a doomed, pot-dealing landlord. We recommend reading the whole thing.

The only thing worse than being the target of tragedy, is watching helplessly as Fate conducts a drive-by shooting. A gentle, hard-working, attentive, selfless young man died, haunted by the specter of a stiff federal sentence for a victimless crime. It’s one thing to read about such tales in a paper or on a web site – where they are, though real, tinged with the abstract. When they invade your life like this, they leave a mark that never rubs off.

Some would argue that Patric’s life was in his own hands, and that his death was his own decision. Considering that federal sentencing guidelines could have put him in jail for most of his natural life, this logic is at best myopic. Today, a man named Ron Ridenour awaits federal sentencing in Montana on charges of marijuana trafficking; he faces five to 40 years behind bars. Ridenour lucked out and drew a lenient judge, critical of mandatory sentencing, who will likely give him the minimum. We’ll never know where on the roulette wheel Patric would have landed. Stacked up against the possibility of spending 40 years in prison, death dons an attraction it wouldn’t otherwise hold for a rational man.

by TChris

Shawn Drumgold was convicted of murdering a 12-year-old girl in 1989. A Boston Globe investigation in 2003 revealed that his conviction was flawed.

The Globe found that a key witness against Drumgold was suffering from brain cancer when she testified about seeing Drumgold at the murder scene. The Globe also found that other prosecution witnesses recanted sworn testimony and statements used to convict Drumgold.

Last November, a judge vacated Drumgold's conviction, and after serving 15 years for a crime he didn't commit, Drumgold was set free. Now he's suing the Boston police, alleging that they withheld evidence of his innocence and pressured a key witness to lie at his trial.

"This is a very strong case," said Drumgold's lawyer, Stephen Hrones, noting other wrongful convictions in the state. This is "another case of Boston police officers so bent on obtaining a conviction in a high-profile case that they broke the rules, violated the Constitution, and wanted the conviction at all costs."

Drumgold is seeking an unspecified amount of damages for the 15 years that were stolen from his life.

Bump and update: Now the prosecution in the Limbaugh case is trying to hire a lawyer who is married to one of the judges on the appeals court considering the appeal (although not on the Rush case panel) to "assist" with the appeal. Will they will stoop to anything to win?

***************
Original Post

The Rush Limbaugh case is getting nastier with each court hearing. Here's the latest, in which the prosecution accused Roy Black, Rush's lawyer, of misleading the court at a prior hearing on the legislative history of the medical records law:

The latest disagreement arose earlier this week when Assistant State Attorney James Martz told an appeals court that Limbaugh's attorney provided wrong information in the case. Both sides appeared before the 4th District Court of Appeal in April to debate whether Limbaugh's medical records, which were seized for the ongoing criminal investigation, should remain private.

During the court hearing, Limbaugh attorney Roy Black told judges that the Florida Legislature had at one time revised state law so that medical records could not be taken by search warrant. On Tuesday, Martz provided the court with information that Black's comments were incorrect.

But two days later, Black fired back, arguing that prosecutors were missing five years' worth of audiotapes of lawmakers' discussions when they made their assertions. "The prosecutor is wrong and his research recklessly incomplete," Black charged in a response filed Thursday in court. "Prosecutors may have many powers, but they do not have the power to skip five years of legislation and rewrite history." Black asked the court to fine Martz for his false accusations.

Ouch. Word of advice to prosecutors: If you go after the king, you better make sure you slay him.