Hey, there! Log in / Register
Feds don't want Chuck Turner to do to them what they did to him
By adamg on Mon, 01/05/2009 - 12:41pm
The U.S. Attorney's office today filed a formal request asking that a federal judge make City Councilor Chuck Turner promise not to publicly divulge the contents of any recordings or documents it hands over to his attorneys before his and Dianne Wilkerson's criminal conspiracy and bribery cases come to trial. The U.S. Attorney's office argues:
Defendant Turner has made clear through his public statements that he intends to press his case in the media prior to trial and to act as "his own lawyer" in that regard. Mr. Turner has held a series of press conferences and rallies since we hwas charged in this matter, aimed in part at bolstering his character and attacking the government's motives for seeking an indictment against him from the grand jury. It can fairly be inferred that Mr. Turner will continue such press conferences and rallies in the future and, in the absence of a protective order, he will selectively use discovery provided by the government as part of his media campaign.
Because that would be unfair (and could hurt Wilkerson) - as opposed to, say, releasing photographic evidence against Turner before his trial.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Prosecution versus Persecution
I think they would do well to let Turner have the information and do what he will with it. To gag him is to fuel the guy's persecution complex by giving it something to feed to his enablers ... er ... supporters. If he has the real goods, he can then "try himself in the media" all he wants, and everybody will just get tired of it quickly or watch him dance around making bizarre and tenuous interpretations of the photos and such.
Provided the FBI has a solid case that is.
Don't give him any excuses
Anything they have to do to make sure that this blowhard is put down where he belongs is what they should do. The things he does and says are outrageous and he knows it. And I am so sick and tired of hearing how all this happened to him because he is black. That makes me sick. It's ok for him to be a racist while he has the balls to call all white people racist.
Go away Chuck. You and Ms. Wilkerson should both be put in prison and forced to watch as this country enters a new time and starts to pull together. The polar opposites of Obama and all he is trying to do is mind blowing. Too bad Chuck and Dianne are both too stupid to see the change that is coming and be a part of it instead of complaining like they have for years that they are the victims. Enough is enough.
Not "anything"
Due process of law is important, and so is respecting the defendant's right to free speech (even if the speech is erroneous or stupid).
good call
Right on for spotting the inconsistency in the US Atty's approach to using the media.
Unfortunately, prosecutors selectively use the media all the time to manipulate public opinion against the person they're going after. For Sullivan's office to make such a claim is ludicrous.
In any event, if I was Turner's lawyer, I'd be trying to put a muzzle on my client for now. Turner already has come out with several inconsistent explanations & responses: (1) it was just a campaign contribution that I forgot to report; (2) maybe that's not me in the photo; and (3) it's all about racial oppression.
Personally, I don't think Chuck Turner is your basic dirty pol -- over the top, yes, but not dirty. If he did it (and that photo is pretty bad), I'm guessing he got caught in a moment of weakness and incredibly poor judgment. I may be wrong, but having traveled at times on the outer peripheries of community organizing circles in Boston, I never got the sense from anyone that he was a guy on the make.
That's different from Wilkerson. What you have there is a collective willingness to look the other way because she delivered for her constituency.
presumed innocent
Does the USA have the right to make public selective evidence?
Is there a process by which the USA must turn said evidence over to the suspect before it makes it public?
If the USA has a lot of discretion with regard to selective leaks then I don;t know how they can urn around and object to how the suspect uses the information.