The feds try try again – and succeed in getting guilty verdicts for the remaining two Whitmer kidnapping defendants
I wrote in a previous post that the feds would keep trying until they managed to convict the remaining defendants of something. I’ve written about the case many times before, for example in this post.
This case involved one of the most obvious and egregious examples of entrapment by the FBI that I’ve ever seen. But for political reasons it was absolutely necessary to get a conviction, and so the original hung jury verdict couldn’t be allowed to be the last word. From Julie Kelly:
Legal observers bristled at the one-day jury selection process handled almost exclusively by U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker, who also presided over the first trial. On the first day of testimony, defense attorneys informed the court that one juror was potentially compromised for telling co-workers that he “had already decided the case and intended to ensure a particular result at the conclusion of the trial.” Jonker met privately with the juror and refused to allow either prosecutors or defense counsel from participating in the meeting; he ordered all related filings to remain under seal.
Jonker repeatedly scolded Gibbons and Blanchard for what he viewed as wasting the jury’s time on “crap” lines of questioning. Before the testimony of government witnesses last Wednesday, Jonker took the unprecedented step of limiting the amount of time for cross examination. Blanchard accused Jonker of openly favoring prosecutors while frequently interjecting and interrupting defense counsel. “Limiting us is unfair and it’s unconstitutional, and it doesn’t aid the jury in the search for the truth,” Blanchard told Jonker on August 17 after the jury had been dismissed for the day. “It’s creating a perception of how this case ends.”
The Justice Department also sought a narrower definition of entrapment, essentially asking Jonker to make it harder for the jury to conclude the defendants were set up by the FBI.
The case largely centered on accusations of a wide-ranging FBI entrapment operation…
Let [the government] know this is not what a fair trial looks like in America,” Christopher Gibbons, attorney for Fox, told the jury during closing arguments on Monday morning. “Do not endorse or reward this type of behavior. It is time to end this debacle and it is time to restore Adam’s freedom.”
Joshua Blanchard, Croft’s public defender, noted the government collected 1,000 hours of recorded conversations between FBI assets and defendants but played less than two hours of clips for the jury; one clip was only four seconds long. “The FBI doesn’t exist, it should not exist, to make people look like terrorists when they aren’t,” Blanchard said during his closing. “This whole thing has been a big FBI charade. This isn’t Russia, this isn’t how our country works.”
It is now.
Kelly adds:
It is unclear at this point whether [defense lawyers] Gibbons and Blanchard will appeal. Their clients face life in prison.
Life in prison.
Please read the whole thing.
This is outrageous. I hope they will appeal.
I can’t imagine them not appealing on the issue of being limited in their time for cross-examination. Limiting the defense seems rather extreme.
One of the few recent stories which might perhaps give one hope that our legal system is not broken beyond all possible repair (as the verdict in the Whitmer entrapment fiasco would seem to suggest) involved the excellent opening statement by Natasha Taylor-Smith, the public defender (black and probably not conservative) working on behalf of J6 defendant Kyle Fitzsimmons. The trial ended last week, with no verdict yet announced.
Limiting cross examination on a tit-for-tat basis is outrageous. This is not only clearly unconstitutional, it should be impeachable
I almost put in this exchange as part of my previous comment, but I realize some might think I was quoting the actual trial rather than what limiting cross examination would do. Here it is:
[Witness takes the stand]
Prosecutor to witness: “Please point to the person that asked you to participate in a kidnapping?”
Witness: [Points to the defendant]
Prosecutor: “No more questions from me”
Defense to witness: “How do you know the defendant that you pointed out?”
Witness: “Well, I met them.”
Defense to witness: “When did you first me them?”
Judge: “Times up! Fair is fair and equal time is equal time. Witness doesn’t need to answer and is dismissed from the stand. Prosecutor call your next witness.”
if the stakes weren’t so serious, I would compare it to the ‘hungarian phrase book’ sketch in monty python, that segues to the spanish inquisition,
clearly the feds were involved in every part of this plot, from optaining explosives,
having other agents sleep with the hapless plotters, well done agent de antuono
U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker has demonstrated that the defendents could not receive a fair trial in his courtroom.
The case certainly must be appealed or injustice has won.
Jonker should be impeached, convicted and removed from office. His pension rescinded, as an object lesson.
A failure to do so enforces the reality of the DOJ and elements within the Federal Judiciary eviscerating the Rule of Law.
Upon that path lies rebellion.
A hack in black on crack. Ends justified by a “judge.”
Guess what would happen if anyone peacefully protested near his stye?
I was kind of favorably inclined toward the feds when I was doing civil rights work in Mississippi in the late Sixties.
Been down hill since then. Is there a word like “asymptotic”, except when the line is trending down?
They want patriots to be in constant fear of being hauled in and put on trial. Always looking over their shoulders, never knowing who to trust, isolated.
Geoffrey Britain, above, avers that Jonker oughta be impeached such egregious prejudicial misconduct.
INDEED.
He continues: “…Eviscerating the Rule of Law. Upon that path lies rebellion.” Righteous needful Rebellion, I must add.
I’m ready to hear Viva Frei and Robert Barnes to examine this “legal” charade, articulate blanks in my skill set and stimulate my own juices for Rebellion and loud shouting outrage, soon.
I read T-Rex brief comment. “ugggggh” I ejaculated to myself.
(Please fire give me. MY BARNES’ rage is prematurely rising.)
Mueller cleaning up his handiwork
https://www.dailywire.com/news/inmates-suspected-of-involvement-in-murder-of-james-whitey-bulger-were-allegedly-aware-of-his-prison-transfer
I’m so old I remember when prosecutors pretended to adhere to legal ethics.
Doctors used to adhere to medical ethics too. Like informed consent.
We ARE old!