Roger Stone apparently made witness "An offer he couldn't refuse"

Roger Stone, recently indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, is not accepting the indictment passively, reported Just Security. He is, not surprisingly, loudly and publicly attacking the charges — decrying the “inquisition,” the “Gestapo” tactics, and the “war” on his “free speech.” In so doing, Stone is exercising his free speech rights. But in so doing, he also exemplifies a deep misunderstanding of the nation’s First Amendment.

Let’s take a quick look at the indictment.

Start with the witness intimidation charges. According to the indictment, Stone repeatedly demanded Person 2 – widely known to be radio host Randy Credico — to refuse Congressional efforts to have him testify and lie about what he knew.

Not just once, but on “multiple occasions,” Stone told Credico to do a “Frank Pentangeli” before the House Intelligence Committee. Pentangeli is, of course, the character in Godfather II who lies before a congressional committee, claiming not to know information in order to protect his mafia boss.

But Credico is not Pentangali, and Stone was not happy about that. When Stone learned that Credico continued to talk to investigators, he took it a step further.

“Prepare to die,” Stone tells Credico, according to the indictment. Stone allegedly warns Credico that his lawyers were “dying [sic] RIP you to shreds” and that they would take Credico’s therapy dog as well.

Note to Stone #1: Threats to a witness with intent to influence or prevent testimony is not protected speech.

Of course, these are just allegations at this point. Prosecutors may not convincingly establish that these statements were made — although presumably they have them in print or on tape since they include specific quotations. And Stone might convince the jury that they were just made in jest.

But if the facts are as they are appear, Stone threated Credico in attempt to convince Credico not to testify or talk.  This is witness tampering, a crime that carries a maximum 20 years prison term. It is not protected speech.

Other parts of the indictment are rife with damning details about lies made to Congress in testimony before the House and Senate intelligence committees. Stone states that he had no relevant “documents, records, or electronically stored information,” when it fact it later turned out that he possessed a range of responsive texts and emails. He said he hadn’t sent or received any texts or emails about Wikileaks, when in fact he sent and received many. He reportedly lied about just about every aspect of the communications, including the timing, mode, and content of his contact with both Wikileaks and the Trump campaign.

Note to Stone #2: Lying in testimony to and concealing documentary evidence from congressional committees is not protected speech.

Rather, it constitutes the crime of making making false statements to Congress — a crime that carries a maximum of five years for each of the five counts charged. Collectively, the lying to, concealment of documents, and alleged intimidation of Credico provide strong support for an obstruction of justice charge, also carrying a maximum of five years.

Stone is free to exercise his free speech rights in as much as he wants to decry attacks on his free speech. But he would benefit from a lesson on the First Amendment before he does so.

To read more CLICK HERE

Testilying: The art of manipulating the criminal justice system

Changing stories told on the stand after convictions is so common, court watchers have a name for it: "Testilying." A stark reality of the criminal justice system is that people lie. They lie to stay out of jail, to get out of jail, to curry favor with cops, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports. Police sometimes lie, too. Untangling who is lying in criminal cases can be “absolutely daunting,” said lawyer Richard Scheff, who recalled wrestling with the issue when he was a federal prosecutor. "There can be any number of reasons why people change their statements."

Scientific advances in crime solving — especially DNA testing — have freed the wrongfully convicted and proven guilt. Almost as a rule, experts say, courts don’t like to reopen old cases without compelling scientific evidence. Jennifer Creed Selber, former chief of the Philadelphia District Attorney's office’s homicide unit, acknowledged witness recantations are a “pervasive” problem. She believes witnesses usually recant because they fear retaliation from defendants. “If we attempted to prosecute every witness that perjures themselves, it would be a completely unworkable and impossible situation.”

Five years ago, the University of Michigan Law School and the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University's law school started a database of criminal exonerations since 1989. The National Registry of Exonerations has catalogued over 2,000 cases.

DNA evidence spurred many, but the growing number of exonerations has led to a “profound change” in the perception of convictions, said Samuel Gross, senior editor of the registry.

“What the DNA cases showed everybody,” he said, “is that a lot of criminal convictions that no one had thought to think about were wrong.”

More than half of his registry’s cases involve perjury and/or false accusations.

Much lying stems from misconduct by police and prosecutors desperate to solve crimes, researchers say. “Witnesses are pressured, threatened, subjected to violence, offered secret deals such as reduced charges in the case at hand or for other crimes, or otherwise coerced or persuaded to falsely accuse the defendant,” a 2013 registry report concluded.

James McCloskey, the founder of Centurion Ministries, a New Jersey-based organization that has helped exonerate more than 50 prisoners since 1980, said about three dozen witnesses have recanted their testimony in Centurion cases.
“They want to reconcile themselves, really help right a terrible wrong,” McCloskey said, but they fear getting in trouble. It can take years to get a witness to publicly acknowledge the lie — and then additional years to actually win an exoneration.

To read more CLICK HERE

Watch my interview on WFMJ-TV

Watch my interview on WFMJ-TV regarding an accused's alleged effort to intimidate a witness, a police chief in Greenville, PA, through social media.  

CLICK HERE to watch the interview. 

NJ seeks closed circuit testimony in DV cases

A New Jersey Assembly panel unanimously approved a measure that would permit domestic violence vitim's to testify against their abusers via closed circuit television if a judge decides victims “would suffer severe emotional or mental distress if required to testify in open court,” reported Northjersey.com.

Currently, only child sex abuse victims can testify in that fashion in New Jersey.

The measure drew concern from Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi, R-River Vale, who said the bill is “potentially problematic” and could infringe on defendants’ constitutional rights to confront witnesses against them in court.

Another Assemblyman, agreed, saying “it would be an interesting case to argue” in court.

But Sandy Clark of the New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women said the bill was important to “ease the trauma” of domestic violence victims and encourage them to speak out against their abusers.

To read more: http://blog.northjersey.com/thepoliticalstate/4970/assembly-panel-approves-tightening-of-penalties-against-sex-offenders/

The Cautionary Instruction: PA Supreme Court authorizes secret grand juries

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
June 29, 2012

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted a new set of rules authorizing prosecutors to use grand juries to bring indictments in cases that may involve witness intimidation.

For nearly 25 years, Pennsylvania has allowed for investigative grand juries, which recommend whether a prosecutor should file charges. The rule changes will enable grand juries to issue indictments sending a criminal case to trial without a preliminary hearing.

The grand jury indictments can be used only in cases where prosecutors have requested permission from the court to empanel the grand jury. The petition requesting a grand jury must include an affidavit establishing, by probable cause, that “witness intimidation has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur.”

Can circumstantial evidence be used to show witness intimidation? It is not yet clear what would constitute probable cause that witness intimidation “is likely to occur.”

Would the fact that no witnesses would come forward or that witnesses say they are frightened to conduct interviews with law enforcement be enough to establish probable cause of witness intimidation?

In some areas of the state, particularly urban areas, there is a culture of not cooperating with the police. Can a grand jury be helpful where “no snitching” is a “badge of honor” as well as a symbol of intimidation?

Under the new rules, the grand jury will, in specific cases, replace the preliminary hearing. Traditionally, a magisterial district judge at a preliminary hearing decides whether the prosecution has presented enough evidence to send a case to trial.

Under the new rules a grand jury will perform a similar review of the evidence and testimony, and issues an indictment. The witnesses will testify in secret before the grand jury instead of in public, although the witnesses will still have to testify in open court when the case goes to trial.

The Supreme Court made the rule changes in response to pervasive witness intimidation in the Philadelphia court system.

Intimidation can include physical violence or property damage, explicit threats of physical violence or property damage, economic threats, and indirect and implicit threats, such as anonymous phone calls, Internet postings, publicly announcing the fact of a witness' cooperation with law enforcement, or repeatedly driving past the residence of the witness or another location where the witness is present, according to the Pennsylvania bench book on witness intimidation.

The cost of empanelling a grand jury may limit its use to larger jurisdictions. The costs of assigning court and prosecutorial staff to grand juries, having judges on call and paying juror fees creates a financial burden for small counties that doesn’t otherwise exist with magisterial district judges presiding over preliminary hearings.

Although witness intimidation is not exclusive to large jurisdictions, the resources to empanel a secret grand jury may be out of reach for most counties.

Visit Ipso Facto

---