Legal News

Defense Requests Mistrial for Senator Stevens; Judge ?Flabbergasted?

By Dan Slater

An unexpected twist at the Senator Stevens trial today: The defense, according to this WSJ report, has alleged that prosecutors withheld key evidence.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan expressed concern about the allegations and blasted prosecutors for secretly sending Rocky Williams, a construction foreman who was involved in renovations on Stevens’s home and a witness for the prosecution, back to Alaska. Stevens is facing charges that he accepted more than $250,000 in gifts — including the home renovations — from Veco Corp., an oil-services company.

“I’m peeved about that,” Judge Sullivan said. “What gives the government the authority to do that?”

Defense lawyers say Williams contacted them over the weekend and provided them with significant evidence that undermines the government’s case. Defense lawyers said Williams told them he spent much less time working on Stevens’s home than Veco’s accounting records indicate. That evidence, they said, “gravely undercuts” the government’s argument that Veco spent $188,000 of its own money on Stevens’s house.

Williams had been in Washington, D.C., preparing to testify, but prosecutors sent him to back to Alaska last Thursday, saying they no longer needed his testimony. Prosecutors didn’t alert the defense or Judge Sullivan that Williams was leaving town. Judge Sullivan said he was “flabbergasted” by the government’s actions.

Prosecutor Nicholas Marsh told Judge Sullivan that the government didn’t withhold evidence from Stevens’s lawyers and that Williams’ testimony wouldn’t have changed the basic issues in the case. “We believed we disclosed exactly what we needed to,” Mr. Marsh said.

In light of the developments, Stevens’s lawyers have asked Judge Sullivan to declare a mistrial or dismiss all charges. Judge Sullivan said he was “not inclined at this point” to take either action, but he indicated that he will recall witnesses who already testified and let Stevens’s lawyers question them again.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on September 29, 2008 (boomark / email).