Feds' John Wiley Price Case Is Either Screwed Up Or Extremely Screwed Up


Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price.

Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Worth.

Sam Merten

Did you ever get badly bawled out by anyone, and the individual stalked out of the room after which stalked again in and began bawling you out once more? Meaning the individual is mad at you. That’s what occurred to federal prosecutors Tuesday within the corruption trial of Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Worth.

Actually, at this level within the sixth week of the trial, the query is not whether or not the federal case towards Worth is tousled. It’s whether or not it’s tousled sufficient to make a distinction.

Earlier than bringing within the jury yesterday, the usually cool and picked up Barbara Lynn, chief decide of the U.S. District Courtroom in Northern Texas, soundly boxed the ears of Felony Chief Assistant U.S. Lawyer Chad Meacham and his subordinate, Assistant U.S. Lawyer Walter Junker, over the federal government’s repeated failures to show over proof to the protection as required by regulation. It was the fourth time she has rebuked them over turning over proof, a course of referred to as “manufacturing” in a trial.

“I’ve had a number of situations that I regard as improper conduct by the prosecution,” she stated. Later in her remarks she stated, “The truth that issues occur that method causes the courtroom to not trust within the accuracy of the thoroughness of the federal government’s manufacturing.”

She referred to as the federal government’s dealing with of its personal proof to date “inappropriate and really disappointing and admittedly inconsistent with my prior very, excellent expertise together with your workplace.”

However it was Junker’s lame try at an excuse that appeared to arouse her specific ire. He stated it was “humanly unattainable for anybody individual to be intimately conversant in each doc on this case.”

Lynn left the courtroom after that, with the jury nonetheless out. However she got here again in, nonetheless steamed about Junker’s rationalization. She stated she had one thing extra to say earlier than bringing the jury in.

She advised Junker it was the federal government’s selection to collect the huge quantity of proof it piled up for this case: “The scope of this investigation is of the federal government’s work.”

It’s the federal government’s job, subsequently, she stated, to maintain monitor of its personal proof: “I don’t care if the job is troublesome. That’s the job that the federal government undertook. This ‘it isn’t humanly potential’ place is unacceptable to the courtroom.”

The decide, nevertheless, denied a movement by protection lawyer Tom Mills to declare a mistrial, falling again on the identical place she has taken on early lapses by the federal government, that the missed proof was not particularly necessary, or, as she put it, “extra chaff than wheat.”

However have the federal government’s repeated fake pas on this difficult case revealed one thing deeper or extra essential than mere goofs? And can these errors ever rise to the extent of a problem for the jury, which was out of earshot for…



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *