U.S. Lawyers Knew About Legal Pitfalls in Blackwater Case

[babylonsister]

U.S. Lawyers Knew About Legal Pitfalls in Blackwater Case

By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: January 1, 2010


WASHINGTON — The sudden blow to the case against the former Blackwater security guards over a shooting that killed 17 Iraqis and wounded at least 20 may have come as a surprise to the public in Iraq and the United States, but the legal problem that the judge cited Thursday when he threw out the indictments was obvious to American government lawyers within days of the shooting.

The issue was that the guards, as government contractors, were obligated to give an immediate report of what they had done, but the Constitution prevents the government from requiring a defendant to testify against himself, so those statements could not be used in a prosecution.

Less than two weeks after the shootings in Nisour Square in Baghdad in September 2007, lawyers at the State Department, which employed the guards, expressed concern that prosecutors might be improperly using the compulsory reports in preparing a criminal case against them, according to the decision.

The prosecutors were also concerned, even using what they called a “taint team” to try to prevent information in the guards’ compulsory statements from influencing the investigation, according to the 90-page ruling by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina of Federal District Court in Washington. The judge said the prosecutors had failed to take “common sense precautions” to avoid the problem.

The ruling led to disappointment in the United States as well as in Iraq.

“It is regrettable that the prosecutors didn’t have the foresight to be able to deal with this problem before the judge had to deal with it for them,” said Vincent Warren, the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a group based in New York that is bringing a civil suit against Blackwater, now named Xe Services, on behalf of the families of the dead and wounded.

Mr. Warren said Friday that he had not yet had time to read the decision, but that for the victims “it sends the wrong message to them about the seriousness with which this government is taking measures of accountability.”

A Justice Department spokesman, Dean Boyd, said Friday that his agency was “considering our options,” but would not comment further.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/us/02legal.html

[midnight]

1. K&R I don't understand the meaning or the importance of attorney's

knowing the pitfalls of this case? Constitution prevents the government from requiring a defendant to testify against himself and therefore throw the case out? How many men and women do we have in prison because they were tricked into testifying against themselves? I fail to understand why in this case,and Ted Stevens case that these laws are upheld? I'm not an attorney, but it appears that laws are not evenly applied in all cases?

[babylonsister]

2. This case was thrown out because of the attorneys and the promises

they made...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101936.html

snip//

The judge, Ricardo M. Urbina of the District's federal court, found that prosecutors and agents had improperly used statements that the guards provided to the State Department in the hours and days after the shooting. The statements had been given with the understanding that they would not be used against the guards in court, the judge found, and federal prosecutors should not have used them to help guide their investigation. Urbina said other Justice Department lawyers had warned the prosecutors to tread carefully around the incriminating statements.

[dorkulon]

3. Am I crazy for wondering is this wasn't planned from the get-go?

Seems like it would be fairly easy for prosecutors to willingly taint their own case, if they didn't want to win.

BTW, "Taint team" ... hee hee