John A. (Junior) Gotti ‘built and ran a massive cocaine trafficking operation,’ prosecutors said Monday during closing arguments.

John A. “Junior” Gotti is a career crook who reveled in the vicious acts needed to protect his cocaine empire, prosecutors said Monday in closing arguments in the mobster’s fourth trial.

Prosecutor Jay Trezevant told jurors Gotti “built and ran a massive cocaine trafficking operation” and did “whatever was necessary” to keep it flourishing.

“The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government.” -William H. Moody

“The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life.  Its history is the history of the moral development of the race.”  -Oliver Wendell Holmes

“No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.”  -Felix Frankfurter

“Justice is the great interest of man on Earth.  It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together.”  -Daniel Webster

“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there’s a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.” – former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.” – Inauguration Speech by Nelson Mandela

“…the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

In a move that surprised a packed courtroom, Superior Court Judge Alice Gibney today passed (aka declared a mistrial) the case of Vann v. Women & Infants Hospital after a five-week medical negligence trial and between defendant’s closing argument and plaintiff’s closing argument.

Gidley, Sarli and Marusak represented the defendant hospital and DeLuca and Weizenbaum (disclosure: where I work) represented the plaintiff child.  The plaintiff alleged that employees of the defendant hospital used excessive force in attempting to resolve a shoulder dystocia (a stuck shoulder) during the birth of the plaintiff in 2000, causing severe and permanent nerve damage to the boy’s right arm such that he has virtually no function of his right arm.

Judge Gibney decided to pass the case after finding the actions of defense counsel, Michael G. Sarli, in closing argument to be “disingenuous” when he argued to the jury a theory of causation that the judge explicitly excluded during the trial.  She said that his argument was prejudicial to the plaintiff.  In addition, she also said that it would be prejudicial to the defendant if she were to read a curative jury instruction to the jury.  The Court did not elaborate on the latter point.

One of America’s greatest trial attorneys was Clarence Darrow.  And his 7-hour closing argument in the case of Henry Sweet (tried before future SCOTUS Justice Frank Murphy)  is seen as a landmark in the Civil Rights movement, and was included in the book ‘Speeches that Changed the World,’ according to Wikipedia.

Read Darrow’s masterpiece here.

Justice Robert H. Jackson, the chief United States prosecutor, delivered his closing argument to the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg on July 26, 1946:

Here’s Johnny Cochran in the famed O.J. Simpson murder trial:

Lucky Boys Confusion’s last album, Closing Arguments, will be released on June 23rd. If you go to their show at the Double Door in Chicago on May 24th, you can get it a month early though. After the jump, you can check out the tracklisting for the album.

Tracklisting:
01 This Town Ain’t Big Enough For the Both Of Us
02 Biggest Mistake
03 18 Years
04 Blood Drops
05 Sidewalk Graves
06 Paint
07 Hedonist II
08 Shoulda Been Me
09 748
10 City of God
11 Leave On the Light
12 When Bad News Gets Worse (Original Version)

Lucky Boys Confusion’s frontman Stubhy announced through his facebook that their new album, Closing Arguments, will be released June 23rd via Red Eye Records. Unfortunately, he also said that this would be the last Lucky Boys Confusion album.

Ill. Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn ready and waiting

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – As the closing arguments in Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s impeachment trial proceed, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn is making his way to Springfield.

Quinn is flying down from Chicago and plans to spend the day in his state capitol office working and monitoring the trial, according to Bob Reed, his spokesman.

Reed said Quinn will be in the state capitol all day awaiting a vote following the trial’s closing arguments.

Cross-posted at Political Fix.

Blagojevich to address impeachment trial, but avoids questioning

By Kevin McDermott and Kari Andren

POST-DISPATCH SPRINGFIELD BUREAU   01/29/2009

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – After boycotting most of his impeachment trial and complaining to national media that the proceedings are unfair, Gov. Rod Blagojevich today is expected to address the Illinois Senate tribunal that is deciding whether to remove him from office.

“It’s my understanding that the governor wishes to file an appearance to give a closing argument,” Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, told a stunned Senate chamber Wednesday afternoon, as lawmakers conducted the third day of the impeachment trial without participation from the Democratic governor or his defense attorneys.

Cullerton said Blagojevich’s request was strictly to make a statement, “not to testify or to submit himself to cross-examination.”

State Senate members indicated Wednesday they likely will grant Blagojevich’s request, though several of them expressed frustration at the way his likely appearance has unfolded.

“I do think it’s somewhat cowardly that he won’t take questions. … He’ll just simply offer his spin much like we have already seen on the talk shows,” said Dan Cronin, R-Lombard. “We know this guy.”

Blagojevich spokesman Lucio Guerrero said in an e-mailed statement that Blagojevich is merely responding to repeated public calls from senators to address them about the allegations against him.

The Senate leadership “has asked the governor to go to Springfield to make his case and that’s what he is doing,” Guerrero said in the statement. He said Blagojevich wants to “make his closing arguments directly to the Senate.”

Under the impeachment trial rules, the legislative prosecutor in the proceedings will be allowed one hour to make his summation this morning. Blagojevich then would be given 90 minutes for a closing statement, probably beginning at 11 a.m. The prosecutor then would get another 30 minutes for rebuttal.

Blagojevich repeatedly has surprised and frustrated his critics in recent weeks with unexpected responses to the legal and political threats against him. He has issued forceful if vague denials of wrongdoing in the face of federal wiretaps; he has alleged that the impeachment proceedings against him are part of a plot by his enemies in the Legislature to raise the state’s income tax; he has found sympathetic national forums on shows like “The View;” and he even beat U.S. Senate leaders in a game of political “chicken,” forcing them to accept his appointee to the Senate, Roland Burris, after vowing not to.

Some Illinois lawmakers clearly viewed Wednesday’s move as another frustrating political maneuver. It will allow Blagojevich to make his case to a statewide and national audience without challenge, after sidestepping the portion of the trial in which he would have been subjected to tough questions about the allegations against him.

“I think all of us would have felt better if the governor would have come, early on, engaged in the process, from the very first day and sat before us instead of on the set of ‘The View’ or ‘Larry King Live’ and told us why it was that he wasn’t guilty,” said state Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. “He doesn’t want to answer questions.”

Senators likely will begin their deliberations by this afternoon. It’s unclear how long that process might take, but they are widely expected to remove Blagojevich, putting Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn in the top office.

Blagojevich faces federal corruption charges following his Dec. 9 arrest, but his more immediate threat is removal from office. Lawmakers have heard testimony from an FBI special agent involved in obtaining wiretapped evidence against Blagojevich and listened to about five minutes’ worth of wiretap audio in which Blagojevich and others appear to be discussing obtaining a political contribution from a horse track owner in exchange for legislation.

Blagojevich also is accused of plotting to personally profit from his power to appoint a replacement for President Barack Obama’s former U.S. Senate seat.

Even Blagojevich has acknowledged that the Senate is likely to remove him. “I believe the fix is in,” Blagojevich told CNN’s Larry King on Monday, the first day of the impeachment trial.

Dan Stormer returned to the podium for a half hour to respond to Bob Mittelstaedt’s closing argument for Chevron. At first, I was a bit disappointed with the rebuttal. Following Bob Mittelstaedt’s tightly organized presentation, Stormer seemed to jump willy-nilly from issue to issue. Whereas Stormer’s closing argument had focused on narrative, his rebuttal dove back into the battle for details. So I was disappointed at first.

But on reflection, I think Stormer’s rebuttal may have been more effective than I had thought. His main theme: Did they honestly and directly address the issues before you?

They did nothing but create distractions, he argued. The first thing the defendants did was take a few words from Stormer’s opening argument out of context-the bit about Chevron’s parent/subsidiary relationship being inappropriate. But, he argued, he had stated that it was the defense’s claim of independence between the corporate entities that was inappropriate. And he expanded on this motif:

“They’ve made up a story and covered it with distractions. They sent in people who were notoriously vicious. Then they said it was to drive them [the Ilaje] onto the platform-the same platform that was supposedly so unsafe and unstable that it posed the original security concerns that made them go in there.”

Stormer was getting visibly emotional-not in the mawkish sort of way you might expect in a trial for damages, but in genuine outrage: now he was railing against the cover-up.

Concerning Mittelstaedt’s law enforcement reporting privilege:

“This wasn’t reporting. This was hiring their own private army to go in there and evict people, without any back-up plan other than deadly force.”

Concerning Chevron’s lack of intent to hurt anyone: it’s a red herring, he argued, there’s no mention of intent in the negligence or reckless disregard instructions.

Concerning Mittelstaedt’s claim of ignorance for Chevron USA’s false media statements:

Mittelstaedt: “They didn’t know about payments to the military. How could they know?”

Stormer: “Mike Browne himself had the responsibility to report all payments made to military personnel. They had documented all the payments. They knew.”

Concerning Mittelstaedt’s assertion that the plaintiffs gave no argument of unlawful detention:

“Of course there is. The very basis of this claim is that they were held, they were unlawfully tortured and beaten, on the water, on the land, from the barge to the prison in Akure.”

Throughout the rebuttal, Stormer’s key assertion was this: we know Chevron lied to the media, how can we trust them now? Every claim he challenged, every detail he rebutted returned to this question.

In the end, I think Stormer’s closing argument and rebuttal helped the plaintiffs case a lot, reversing some of the damage inflicted by the past week of testimony from the defense’s witnesses. Will it be enough?

I thought Mittelstaedt’s close–though impeccable–was far less effective than his opening argument, and now that the credibility of Chevron’s witnesses has been questioned, the plaintiffs definitely have a fairer shake at winning. But to do so will require a unanimous verdict. Chevron only needs to convince one juror that this really was sea piracy and that Chevron Nigeria was right to fly in the military. Or that the military was firing in self-defense. Or that Chevron Nigeria was not acing as an agent of Chevron USA and the other parent entities.

As you can guess, there are a number of points on which unanimity will be difficult to achieve. Difficult but not impossible.

After the jurors left to begin their deliberation, there was I thought a moving scene in the court. With the crowded rows all standing at attention and the two legal teams on their feet, Judge Susan Illston descended from the bench. “I want to shake hands with everyone,” she said. “Not the lawyers, but the real people”. And with that she approached the benches where the Ilaje villagers were standing. She shook hands with the Nigerians and she shook hands with the Ilaje interpreter-thanking him for his services-and she shook hands with Chevron’s counsel who had observed the trial for the defendants. It was a very human moment, and a reminder that whatever the verdict and whatever the course of appeal that will inevitably follow, this has been an historic case and a test of bringing global justice into the U.S. justice system.

I’m glad I was able to observe the trial and document it here.

Thanks,
Scott Gilmore

“Members of the jury, our system of justice is a model for the world. It is a system that has allowed the democratic process to succeed.  And it’s fitting that our clients have come 8,000 miles from a foreign land to come before you to seek justice, just 36 miles from San Ramon, where the defendants have their headquarters.”

It was a perfect pitch beginning for Dan Stormer’s closing argument. After a long trial that–like any trial–has often bogged down in minutiae, Stormer restored to the proceedings a sense of the broader meaning of the case.  Once the first few novel days had passed, we’d been left with the sometimes myopic, sometimes suffocating environment of a civil trial. Stormer’s closing was a respite from all that.

There was one thing the plaintiffs needed to do in closing–simultaneously control a week’s worth of damaging testimony from the defense’s witnesses and reinscribe the plaintiffs’ central narrative into the minds of the jurors. I think Stormer succeeded.

Last week, the defense’s case presented a fragmented account of the events: all of the expat witnesses gave wildly different accounts; after cross-examination and impeachment, the Ilaje witnesses seemed sometimes confused and sometimes less than credible. But I think that was part of Chevron’s strategy: turn everything into a confusing jumble and then repeat Chevron’s easily digestible but largely irrelevant counterclaims. Dangle a little juju and David Schools’ adventure stories, but bypass the actual allegations.

Since the facts had degenerated into that mess, Stormer refocused his argument on what was not in dispute: that the oil extraction industry had ravaged the Niger Delta, that Nigeria’s military dictatorship in 1998–which formed a joint venture with CNL–was at its most brutal and darkest hour under Sani Abacha.

Stormer then went on to reframe our image of the Concerned Ilaje Citizens–the group that carried out the Parabe protest. Countering Chevron’s relentless vilification campaign, Stormer reasserted the Ilaje perspective:

“We know that Larry Bowoto, Bola Oyinbo, Arolika Irowarinun, and Bassey Jeje were all a similar age. They were a new generation.  They started life in a thriving indigenous culture that supported their community. Then the seawater came in from the dredging and killed the fish, killed the mangroves, killed the reeds, it killed the animals. There was no timber, no drinking water. There was massive erosion, oil spills, gas flares. They even lost their graves…[B]ut this group had a new idea. They were going to address not just stay-at-home jobs. They wanted to address the environment, schools, and their future. And they had a more expansive agenda-using Scott Davis’s terms, they were an out of control group because they couldn’t be controlled by Chevron.”

Stormer then walked us through the sequence of letters sent by the CIC to CNL requesting that they meet to address these grievances–letters which apparently Chevron never bothered to read until after the incident. He stressed this point–for all of the defense’s insistence on the ’sea piracy’ language as proof that CNL was dealing with a violent group, CNL hadn’t even read the CIC’s letters at the time and thus couldn’t have felt threatened by the letter-writers’ diction.

The plaintiffs made good use of the projector as they showed the room direct quotations from the memos, logs, and emails written during the 3 days of the occupation:

May 25th Scott Davis: “Peaceful so far”
May 26th “All quiet on the barge”
May 27th Thomas Schull email to COP/CUSA: “villagers unarmed, situation calm since arrival. Still in negotiation.”

Stormer also derived a key point from Scott Davis’s testimony: Davis insisted there was an impasse because the Ilaje demanded 10 million Naira for logistics and a large sum for environmental reparations. “If this would involve those sums of money, this was going to drag on for a long time.” Then he made the decision to call in the military. Contrary to the defense’s assertion, Scott Davis never cited rescuing the hostages as the reason he called in the guns: his goal was to evict the invaders.

As we got into the gravamen of the case against Chevron, Stormer ran through a series of damning quotes from internal memos that indicated that Chevron Nigeria Ltd. and the parent company were well aware of the brutal reputation of the military and the “kill and go” mobile police. They even declared the mobile police “a greater threat to our people than the communities” and “a threat to Chevron staff and contractors.” This certainly seems to speak to negligence.

Stormer drove on with his uncontested points: We know that the military was paid, fed, housed and supervised by Chevron. {Speaks to agency} We know that Chevron leased helicopters and paid pilots to fly out army, navy, and kill and go personnel to Parabe–to evict invaders. We know they carried their rifles at port arms–as Wayne Hawkins vividly described. We know their orders were to shoot tear gas to drive the protesters off the barge and onto the platform–the platform that Chevron repeatedly insisted was so unstable and unsafe.

This was their plan. There was no back up plan other than using deadly force. What else could the security forces do? They were simply dumped on the platform, with no boats for evacuating the hostages or the protesters for that matter. What could one reasonably expect an armed force with a “notorious reputation” {Chevron’s words} to do in such a situation?

Stormer then started landing the body blows: a graphic and gripping description of the torture and beating of Bola Oyinbo and the other detainees–which, as he would later point out, constitute the core of the claims of unlawful arrest, torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment which fall under the scope of the Alien Tort Statute.

From this devastating testimony, Stormer moved to the most impeaching evidence against Chevron USA and  co-defendants: a series of false media statements issued in 1998 that were deliberately intended to cover up the wrongful acts of the Nigerian military and Chevron Nigeria Ltd. Here’s a sample:

In the LA Times: “Bottom line of it all is Chevron has not been involved or connected in any internal police activities in Nigeria.”

In the Wall Street Journal: “Chevron didn’t pay for troops to come to Parabe rig.”

And this came right after we heard Judge Illston read a jury instruction stating that the defendants can be found liable if-after the fact-they ratified, adopted, or approved the primary agent’s wrongful conduct, even if it was originally unauthorized. The instructions explicitly state that false media statements and false statements regarding the ownership of boats and helicopters can be considered an attempt to cover up the wrongful conduct, and are thus evidence of ratification.

I will deal with the jury instructions later, but this is definitely a strong point for the plaintiffs.

With that, Stormer brought out a central theme of his argument: Chevron’s distraction strategy. Stormer asked the jury to see if Chevron will actually defend itself on any of the issues at stake because it hasn’t so far. Instead, it has thrown up a smoke screen of distractions at the jury in an attempt to mislead them. Thus the long irrelevant tugboat testimony-involving none of plaintiffs and occurring after the shooting.  Thus the preposterous and at times obviously fabulated testimony of the expats. Thus Tim and Mike Browne’s obviously cribbed statements. Thus Burnham’s videotaped deposition where he gives one response and is then coached into another by Chevron’s counsel. Thus the ridiculous juju theory. [Stormer didn't mention it-he didn't need to.] Thus the turtle incident. Thus the pantomimed Molotovs.

In the end, I think the plaintiffs recovered a lot of ground via the closing argument. I confess that I too was feeling bogged down in the details and had lost the big picture. Stormer’s narrative was a corrective: compelling, plausible, and most importantly simple. It was something for the jurors to hold onto-a frame to hang around the case. Will it be enough to sway every juror? Who knows.  At the very least the plaintiffs can be satisfied that their case was made.

With his last lines, Stormer tied in the defense’s strategy in the courtroom with the Chevron P.R. wing’s disinformation campaign back in the 1990s:

“They didn’t want to be held accountable by the press in 1998, so they lied. They don’t want to be held accountable now. But you–through our system of justice–can hold them accountable.”

Today we heard closing arguments from both the plaintiffs, Bowoto et al., and the defendants, Chevron USA et al. The day began with Judge Illston reading the 66 pages of jury instructions to the jury. These poor jurors will have to contend with a complex thicket of cascading agency relationships and vying theories of liability.  How they will sort through it without a lawyer’s help, I do not know.

I’ve got my own worries though — how to do justice to the massive amount of argument and law presented today.

Ok here’s my plan–there’s a lot of material to cover and I want to give both closing arguments their due.

Tonight I will try to cover Dan Stormer’s closing argument.

Tomorrow I will cover Bob Mittelstaedt’s close and Stormer’s rebuttal.

Then, I will try to see if I can map out my understanding of the theories of liability and the various charges the jury will have to consider.

For the time being: the jury has begun deliberating. My hunch is that we won’t hear a verdict until post-Thanksgiving. I’ll do my best to keep you all posted as soon as I hear any news.

The end is nigh: Chevron’s defense announced that they will rest their case on Monday. Judge Illston is expected to read the jury instructions–which by her hand gesture appear to be as thick as a phone book–on Tuesday. Closing arguments will begin Tuesday and should be concluded by Wednesday. Then it’s up to the jury.

After the fourth week of trial, I must confess that Chevron’s case seems stronger than I had first thought.  It’s probably inevitable that the balance would shift as the defense’s evidence accrues. That’s not to say that things won’t swing back in the plaintiffs’ favor by Wednesday.

Chevron’s case is built on the testimony of the expatriate–i.e. American–barge workers and supervisors aboard the CBL-101 barge at Parabe. While there have been major contradictions between the witnesses’ accounts, certain repeated elements seem to suggest that the Ilaje might not have been as peaceful as their testimony had indicated.

But then again peacefulness can be in the eye of the beholder.  Each of Chevron’s witnesses denied that the Ilaje were non-violent. When asked why he believed this, nearly every witness explained that the workers felt confused and didn’t have control over the situation. None of them produced the straightforward response I would expect: Because the Ilaje used physical violence.

So the perception that the Ilaje were violent seems based more on the workers’ state of mind–no doubt they saw themselves as hostages held by dangerous Africans–rather than on the observed conduct of the Ilaje villagers.

We’ve heard grossly exaggerated accounts of the expats’ ordeal. All that was missing was a cauldron to boil them in and a witch-doctor–oh wait a minute.

But we also heard relatively restrained versions. What’s common to all is the massive amount of hearsay. “I heard they ripped a door off the hinges.” “I heard they poured diesel all over the deck and lit matches.” “I heard they started a riot.”

So here’s my hypothesis as to what happened–and we’ll see how this compares to the plaintiffs’ closing argument.

I believe the crew was already slightly traumatized by the Itsekiri occupation in March 1998. Based on past experience and a foundation of rumour (and perhaps centuries of colonialism), the expat workers were predisposed to fear any native Nigerian who invaded their workspace. Thus the shock and dread they felt as they watched a swarm of dugout canoes approach the barge and saw Ilaje men scramble aboard the barge-even if CNL’s security team was standing calmly by. Nearly all of the witnesses stated that the boarding itself was violent–not because the Ilaje carried arms or attacked anyone–but because it was disorderly. They didn’t follow procedure and sign-in to the logbook. They didn’t board in a single-file.

Perhaps there was some shouting and maybe some shoving–although according to the witnesses, the Ilaje were constantly shouting for three days. Here, I wonder if the workers didn’t misperceive normal Ilaje speech as shouting.

There seems to have been some sort of confrontation at the gate to the platform, but what exactly happened is hard to say. From that point on, the expats–15 or so men–locked themselves in the living quarters and never went on the deck, only circulating in the offices, walkways and in the galley. As the hours passed they seemed to relay reports to each other, some of which were completely fabricated fantasies–seeing the Ilaje pantomime the assembly of Molotov cocktails–others were likely transferred memories from the March 1998 Itsekiri occupation. Still others were likely based on real observation.

All of this information–the product of a group of men lock inside, stewing in their own fear–was then radioed to Scott Davis’s crisis management team. The reports were all filtered through CNL’s representative on the barge, David Parkin, and given his imprimatur.

So Chevron’s crisis team based their decision on the frightened hearsay of men locked in a room for three days. Faced with supposed riots, razor blades, long knives, petrol bombs, diesel fuel all over the deck, natives playing with matches, men ordered to lie in the sun, men lifted in the air and held over the sea, Chevron Nigeria Ltd. (with Chevron’s approval) went and called in the Navy and mobile “Kill and Go” police.

I would say that herein lies the negligence: Scott Davis failed to verify David Parkin’s reports. He failed to consult the other men on board; he failed to compare the eyewitness perspectives to test their veracity; he even failed to confer with the captain of the barge. He made the same error when he failed to test Deji Haastrup’s perception of the negotiation process against those of Haastrup’s assistant negotiator; both should have been debriefed.

Anyhow, if I had to confront Chevron’s counsel’s evidence, that’s probably the line I would take. But I’m just a student.  Let’s see how the pros handle it.

I love this first ad.  Its creative and gets straight to the point.  So here it is, its called “Rearview Mirror”

This next ad is all about bipartisanship. This ad is called “Something”

Really?? Well this may help you decide!

After lunch, defense attorney, Brendan Sullivan, continued for another hour and a half with his closing statement…

Sullivan argued: “The government makes a big deal out of stained glass… Ted Stevens had nothing to do with stained glass. Ted Stevens doesn’t give a darn about stained glass or any other art… It was Catherine who cared about it.” Note to self: When giving Uncle Ted a gift, don’t go for an interesting art piece!

Leaning over the podium toward the jury, Sullivan questioned: “How can we go from stained glass to a criminal courtroom?”

The defense argued that in most instances it was about Catherine or Bill. “It’s true that all the bills didn’t come through,” remarked Sullivan. He argued that it was Bill Allen’s doing and not Ted Stevens’ fault.

One of the most entertaining comments of the afternoon was when Sullivan stated: “And by the way, do you want to know the real Ted Stevens? He’s the kind of person with a wooden toolbox from his grandpa…He can live with a wooden toolbox.”

Sullivan closed his speech by arguing that there is not sufficient evidence to vote guilty, and that Uncle Ted’s character is enough to provide someone with reasonable doubt that he would knowingly commit the crime.

- Anna

“I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong and I’m going on with my life.”

I was pumped for the closing arguments.  Time for the prosecution to shine. Was sure it would be just like the closing argument by James Spader from Boston Legal last night when the power of the closing argument threw out the 50-year-old, outdated law that prevents returning vets from challenging shoddy medical care.

But no.  Real life does not imitate TV even in the trial of Senator Ted “the hulk” Stevens.

For a long, boring hour and half, the government’s attorney reviewed, reminded and inventoried every gift received and the value.

We again heard about Bill Allen’s power, his wealth and generosity.

While half-listening to what seemed to be a replay of all the previous testimony, I google chatted some colleagues to see how the 100-mile bike race went, I cleaned up some old emails and then, slowly, I was drawn back into the steady, monotonous litany.

Then it hit me.  Slow and steady wins the case.  Take for example that deluxe generator that Stevens claimed was just to survive the Y2 crisis.  That was clearly a gift.  A gift that Stevens requested.  A gift that Stevens did not return.  A gift he can’t blame on his wife Catherine.  A gift he can’t blame on Persons.  And the generator is still there!

The attorney asks the jury “Does anyone believe that Stevens can’t stop the gifts and does anyone believe that he can’t give them back?”  Hell no.

And then I’m hooked.  Like the attorney says, this “case is not about doing things for gifts.  It’s about his obligation to disclose the gifts.  He knows how to fill out the forms.  But he’s mad about the GD forms (God Damn).  He doesn’t disclose the gifts from VECO or Bill.  Funny that all other gifts he’s able to disclose.”

“Case isn’t about the dog. It’s about how he handled the gift.  On the disclosure form it says it was an award and only worth $250.  Everyone knows Penny bought the dog for $1k and then gifted Ted.”

Then the government has a one-liner: “You’ve heard of ‘pay me now or pay me later?’ Well in this case it’s ‘pay me never.’”

And then the finale.  Not James Spader, or Tom Cruise or Atticus Finch but maybe as good as it gets for the government.  They play the tape!!!

And just listen to Uncle Ted: “You have to have intention of doing something wrong to make it wrong.  Long time before we’re in front of a jury.  And I hope to God we aren’t going there.”

“Mental attitude…. They’re not going to sue us, might have to pay a fine, serve a little time in jail.  But I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong and am going on with my life.”

Prosecution rests.

Cindy Shogan

Is Stevens’ Chalet a front for a fencing operation?

Last day of testimony of the trial of the century.   And what did we learn?  Not too much.  Stevens was on what could only be called the “warm seat” today, wearing a pale blue tie.

Government continued to grill Senator Stevens about his gifts which he continued to deny were gifts.  “Not my chair.  Not my chair at all.  He (Bill Allen) put it in our house.  We were always going to send our DC furniture north.” 

The wily government really tripped Stevens up about how much he used the chair.  He claimed that it wasn’t comfy, due to all his back problems he never used it. 

“But hold on, there is this email that says your wife and daughter had to drag you away from the chair.”

But what was most astounding was that Stevens revealed that he’s a stranger in his own house.  “We have lots of things in our house that don’t belong to us.” 

Ah ha.  I really think that the Stevens’ Chalet in Girdwood is a front for stolen goods. 

Stevens’ attorneys really made mincemeat out of the government’s other smoking gun – an email from Stevens inquiring if he should be worried about “heading up a blind canyon?”  Prosecution wanted you to believe it was about accepting the “non-gift-gifts.”   But it turns out it was really about the gas pipeline.  Stevens and his buddies at VECO and Arctic Power apparently contemplated an alternative royalty program  but Stevens’ wondered if that “would be heading up a blind canyon” because it would get referred to a congressional committee that Stevens’ did not control.

Stevens was dismissed.  All testimony ended.  Tomorrow – big long day – final arguments.  Government, prosecution, then government again.  Instructions to the jury will occur Wednesday.

Cindy Shogan