Dominique Strauss-Kahns Attorneys Rule Out Plea Deal

A lawyer for Dominique Strauss-Kahn has confirmed his client will not plead guilty to anything.

The letter from the accuser's lawyer to the DA seeking recusal and appointment of a special prosecutor is all grandstanding. In three and one half pages, he never even cites a statute or case supporting his position. He declares himself judge and jury by proclaiming that the evidence shows DSK is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What's he really up to? In my view, the letter is a pre-emptive strike at Vance's office in case they decide to charge his client with a crime for her admitted false statements to the grand jury or involvement in her jailed husband's financial crimes. By impugning the integrity of the DA's office, he's saying that any future charges against his client are the product of unfair bias. [More...]

He also wants the actual recording of the phone call in Arizona. He overlooks that his client is not a party to the case, but a witness, and not entitled to discovery or the phone call. He says it shouldn't have been disclosed to the defense because in his view it wasn't Brady (exculpatory.) He fails to mention it is Giglio (impeaching.)

Parsing his letter, and his repeated use of the words "purported" and "allegedly" when discussing the call from jail and the dialect spoken in it, here's where I think he's going. Law enforcement has leaked that the call was in the accuser's unique Fulani dialect, and they had to find a translator. The call was probably in Pulaar, which is a dialect of Fula spoken in Gambia. She spoke that as well, but perhaps not perfectly. If they used a translator who was only an expert in her dialect and not Pulaar (or vice-versa), the translator may have misinterpreted what she said in the call.

If the criminal charges are dropped against DSK, even if the DA's office doesn't file charges against her, ICE could take action to cancel or withdraw her green card charging fraud in her asylum application. She could be subject to removal (deportation.) If she's sent back to Guinea or a third country, she won't be here to pursue a civil suit for damages against DSK. That leaves her lawyers only with the libel suit against the Post. I don't think that's where they want to be.

What I really object to in his letter, aside from his stating as fact that DSK is guilty of a crime, are his repeated assertions that he's entitled to the fruits of the DA's investigation. As a witness, and not the defendant, she has no standing or right of criminal discovery. If she's charged with a crime and becomes a defendant, then she'll get them. Nor does he have a right to be told in advance of the press about the decision for an ADA not to participate in the case because she's married to an associate of DSK's lawyer. The New York Times reported all the details.

The accuser is a witness. She may be under criminal investigation. Only if DSK is convicted, does she achieve the status of crime victim. Even then, she's not entitled to all the things her lawyer is asking for and complaining about.

< Casey Anthony to Be Freed Wednesday, Juror Wants Cash for Interview | The Third Act >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thanks for your explanation. (none / 0) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 02:08:29 PM EST

    He wont be so lucky when Tristane (none / 0) (#2)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    Banon moves forward with her charges.

    What about DSK lying? (none / 0) (#3)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 03:34:21 PM EST

    Strauss-Kahn has told investigators that he was with his daughter in a restaurant in New York at the time the attack reportedly took place

    Or is it only a crime to lie to Federal investigators?

    OR... could it be a timing mistake? (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 04:29:50 PM EST
    a date mistake?

    Let me put you in a room and threaten you without threatening you, call you a liar to your face multiple times, and see how you respond.

    No, this wasn't from the current case. This was a DEA interrogation that I walked out of. I refused to translate any more.


    Rastaman... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 08:17:48 AM EST
    nah work for the DEA, no way.

    Scotland Yard, KGB, neither the CIA.

    I knew I liked you holmes, good for you man:)

    The whole interrogation game is to trick you into slipping up...any info that comes out of an interrogation room must be taken with heavy grains of salt.


    apples and oranges (none / 0) (#15)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:21:39 PM EST
    the difference being DSK knew he had sex with her which he denied until "lawyering up"

    surprise surprise! (none / 0) (#4)
    by TipstersWorld on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 03:44:00 PM EST
    well well, nothing ever sticks to the rich and powerful. The outcome didnt surprise me at all. A maid vs the super banker? Take a prediction for the outcome!!!

    outcome? (none / 0) (#7)
    by markw on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 05:24:35 PM EST
    What outcome?  The case hasn't been determined yet.

    And, if the DA's office decides to dismiss the case, are you suggesting that that would be a miscarriage of justice, given what the prosecutors have already revealed about the accuser?  There is virtually a zero chance this trial can result in a prosecution due to the accuser's scamming and/or lying to the INS, police, IRS, public housing authorities, and grand jury.  Do you think the DA should press forward with a case that could not by any stretch of the imagination be proven?


    I think he was (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:42:05 PM EST
    shilling for his site. If he does it again, he'll be banned.

    I think so, too (none / 0) (#11)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:27:01 PM EST
    Seems like spam to me, or very close to it.

    so far, i've seen no evidence (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 05:17:41 PM EST
    presented that the accuser was involved in any criminal activity alleged to have been committed by her husband/bf/friend. probably why she hasn't actually been charged with any of that yet.

    to be blunt, i have yet to be impressed with any of the attorneys involved in this case, on either side. perhaps i'll just wait for the cliff's notes version.

    how about... (none / 0) (#8)
    by markw on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 05:26:03 PM EST
    How about lying to the grand jury?  That is certainly a crime.

    I about filing a false income tax report.  Certainly a crime.

    How about frauding public housing authorities by falsely reporting the number of dependents you have so as to qualify for low-income housing.  That is certainly a crime.


    Does this case expose our every weakness? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 05:39:19 PM EST
    "But when things get too confusing, honey...
    You're better off in bed...
    And I'll be searching all the joints in town for...
    Panama Red..."

    (actually it's been a very long time, but I love the sentiment.)

    great song, (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 08:09:23 AM EST
    great band.