Comments on: What’s Wrong With This Picture? Wilkes Sprung From Slammer!

By: skdadl

skdadl — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:40:53 +0000

Well, I needed to, MR, and I’m severely caffeinated, so thank you. I had just been reading Scott Horton on torture as well, and thinking that this was a funny way to spend a beautiful spring Saturday morning. But then I stumbled on to the perfect antidote to too much torture-reading — I went back to Horton’s “No Comment” main page and remembered what he tries to do for us most days with his ever-so-apt quotations from timeless literature and the wonderful art he reproduces, scattered here and there between the seriously depressing reporting of crime in high places.

Oh, and look! There’s Neil doing the same thing here. Clear minds — somehow it is reassuring to know that so many persist.

By: Neil

Neil — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:37:00 +0000

“When you live in times of terror, when everything is a conspiracy, then everyone must play the detective.” - Walter Benjamin

By: MarieRoget

MarieRoget — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:19:47 +0000

Ugh, needed more coffee before posting. Forgot snark tag @ 25 & I just read the FIndLaw piece, not you need to…

By: MarieRoget

MarieRoget — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:16:13 +0000

John Dean’s a big fan of Bybee, too, bmaz. Just read his piece from FindLaw 1/05:

The Torture Memo By Judge Jay S. Bybee That Haunted Alberto Gonzales’s Confirmation Hearings

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 06:23:21 +0000

Well. I have checked out the docket on Wilkes’ appeal. Here is the initial docketing order/schedule:

Filed in D.C. on 2/22/08; setting schedule as follows: transcript shall be ordered by 3/14/08 for Brent Roger Wilkes; Fee payment due 3/7/08; transcript shall be filed by 4/13/08; appellants’ briefs, excerpts due by 5/23/08 for Brent Roger Wilkes; appellees’ brief due 6/22/08 for USA; appellants’ reply brief due by 7/6/08 for Brent Roger Wilkes. (RT required: yes) ( Sentence imp 144 months) (MOATT) [08-50063]

I think the briefing schedule was stayed for a period of time, so those dates are likely to really be further out than stated here. Does not look like the transcript nor the appellate brief are filed and it would not let me pull up the Wilkes Release Motion. Pretty clear that this decision was not based on anything more than was contained in the new trial motion Geragos did. I am not buying that that was a sufficient basis to say it “raised a substantial question of law or fact, that is likely to result in reversal, an order for a new trial, or a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment.”

I will also note that the third judge at the 9th Circuyit level that has had his hands on this matter is none other than the cretinous Jay Bybee; although it doe not appear that he was involved in the release order.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 05:15:25 +0000

Yep, seen Geragos new trial motion; it looks like the same baloney if the SDUT is reporting this accurately (they are better than most to be honest); but if that is it, I really am shocked the 9th sprung him.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 05:12:27 +0000

I’ve seen that one, i think the original version of it is what i wrote this thing off of. I’ll see if I can find the brief. Looks from a quick check like you are right and I was wrong, but whoever his lawyers were (guy named Granger out of New York), I thought Michael’s motion to dismiss was done a lot better than any of Wilkes’stuff.

By: chrisc

chrisc — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 05:12:21 +0000

bmaz, here is Geragos motion for a new trial.
It just barely touches on Michael Williams- mostly with respect to not knowing what immunity was offered to Joel Coombs.

With regard to prosecution misconduct in summation, Geragos complained that Forge told the jury the prosecution did not call Cunningham because they didn’t want to give him any breaks on his sentence. Geragos claims that Forge shouldn’t have given the jury his opinion about something that wasn’t presented in the evidence.
And in fact, they did give him a sentencing break.

And there are some other evidentiary errors mentioned that Geragos felt warranted a new trial

By: chrisc

chrisc — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:51:25 +0000

sorry, that news article is not about the appellate brief- it is about the AUSAs filing for Wilkes to get more time.
Check the link at chris@13 for the latest news article from SDUT

By: chrisc

chrisc — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:46:20 +0000

I haven’t seen the brief but there is a NCT news article here

I think John T Michael had a for-pay laywer- not a public defender. He might have had to sell a few of the family beamers and/or boat to pay for him. When “the family” was having at it on TPM, someone (likely from the Kontogiannis side) slammed JTM’s lawyer for not being classy enough. I think the lawyer had a good laugh when he spilled the beans on TommyK’s mortgage fraud.