Saturday, November 13, 2004

Breakin' the Law

Help me out here folks. Isn't "knowingly allowing false testimony": by a lawyer either a violation of the law or at least something you get disbarred for doing?

This happened 11 years ago, so statutes of limitations may apply on the criminal issues
(can a lawyer chime in?), but it wouldn’t have been nice if this little bit of information was known before November 2nd when people were deciding if Joe Deters should be in the same job where according to a judge he "knowingly allowing false testimony," which no matter how you slice it is bad.

I am sure the get a conviction no matter what crowd out there will in so many words claim the ends justify the means, but when they are on the Deter's chopping block, I wonder if they would change their tune.

Based on the article it does indeed look like Deters will have a scandal to deal with:
When Horn testified at Wogenstahl's trial, he said he "never" sold drugs -- something Harrison police later insisted under oath that Deters and assistant prosecutors Mark Piepmeier and Rick Gibson knew was false.

"(I)n August 1992, before the trial, Horn has been arrested and (convicted as a juvenile) for trafficking in marijuana. Wogenstahl claims that the prosecutors knew this but still allowed Horn to testify falsely," Painter wrote.

Harrison police officers swore in depositions after Wogenstahl's trial that that was exactly what happened.

"If proved, the prosecutors' conduct violated the law and ethical rules. And it is something that disciplinary counsel for the Ohio Supreme Court should examine," Painter wrote.
Judge Mark Painter was the judge in this case and is a well respected Republican, so anyone claiming politics is behind this is full of it. What prosecutor will honestly say a police officer is lying? That applies double here in Cincinnati where the police can do no wrong.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't be an idiot or your post will be deleted.