Sunday, June 24, 2007
According to a post on the Libby Legal Defense Trust website (referencing an AP story on Boston.com), the issue of an appellate bond for convicted I. "Scooter" Libby will be decided by appellate "Judges David B. Sentelle, Karen Lecraft Henderson and David Tatel." Two were appointed by Republican Presidents and one by Clinton. Hon. David B. Sentelle was crucial in the appointment of Kenneth Starr. Hon. Sentelle was also one of two judges (along w/ Hon. D.H. Ginsburg) that voted to reverse the conviction in the case of United States v. Poindexter, 951 F.2d 369 (D.C. 1991), a case dissented to by Judge Mikva. But as noted by Boston.com, Hon Reggie Walton, who was appointed by President Bush, refused to grant an appellate bond. Key to this decision will be whether Libby can show that his appellate issues raise a "substantial question of law or fact" that might result in an eventual reversal of the conviction.
Check out the Wall Street Jrl here discussing the recent move by prosecutors to request the court dismiss some of the cases against KPMG executives. Would prosecutors really seek dismissal of cases to secure the tactical advantage of having the matter finalized for appeal? And if that is the case, should prosecutors be held to the same standard as defense counsel who are forced in many cases to make tactical decisions that can jeopardize an entire case (e.g. deciding whether the client will testify). Should the dismissals be with prejudice - after all - how much in attorney fees should the defense have to pay (that is if they do have to pay in the final resolution of the attorney fee question)?