Trial Part 4
What do you say when someone asks you, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
If you answer, "I haven't," then it looks like you are still beating her. But if you answer something like "a long time ago" then it looks like you used to beat her but eventually stopped. If you never beat your wife then you can't answer the question. It's a lose-lose situation, and if you aren't given the option to challenge the validity of the question itself then you have no way out. It's entrapment.
Roughly a year ago Guy was called as a defense witness in the trial against David Brown. During the course of the testimony the judge himself challenged Guy with a set of questions very similar to the "when did you stop beating your wife" question. And he absolutely disallowed Guy any possibility of challenging the question or any non-answering of the question -- even though Guy specifically asked for each of these. When Guy finally gave an answer to this lose-lose type of question it is obvious that his answer appears to be incriminating (just like if the person in the example above answered saying "but I didn't stop beating my wife"). But just as obviously there are very real reasons why Albania has laws that prevent this sort of thing.
(The actual series of questions surrounded a core question of "why didn't YOU report this crime"? The actual answer was that Guy didn't find out until much later and at that point he was told that the crime had been reported. But the judge didn't allow Guy to answer in that vein -- he insisted on an answer of why Guy himself/personally didn't "re-report" the crime. If the judge doesn't allow your answer "it was already reported" then what DO you say?!?)
More on this later...
Yesterday was the next installment in the ongoing saga of Guy's trial. It corresponded with my 40th birthday and I was really hoping the judge would give me a birthday present in the form of throwing the case out of court or something, but such was not to be.
We went through the usual filing into court, security, etc. We were in a different room this time and a news crew showed up this time -- seemed pretty promising.
After standing for the judge (and going through the now-expected formalities of identifying the various players and approving a new translator) we settled in for what was hoped to be an hour or so of actual judicial argument. There were a few more of us than on previous court days (30-35?) and the new room was a little smaller, but we all managed to scrunch in. The prosecutor started out looking a little more relaxed, but within a couple minutes her hands were shaking every time she lifted them off her papers. (I think we're all starting to feel sorry for her...)
The prosecutor had no additional motions. So Guy's lawyer had the opportunity to start his own motions. His first motion was to suppress evidence which the prosecution had which was obtained illegally. This is basically the notes taken at the trial of David Brown when Guy gave testimony for the defense and the judge asked him the series of entrapping questions and gave him no warning. Guy's lawyer read the exact sections in the Albanian law which are relevant. And it is crystal clear from the Albanian law that the judge was COMPLETELY off base. Obviously to start with he had a clear responsibility NOT to entrap a witness (shouldn't this go without saying?!). But beyond this he is required to warn a witness if she/he makes any statement which could be construed as self incriminating. And legally any testimony that is given before that warning is explicitly excluded from any future court cases against that witness -- for the exact reasons we're seeing here.
Well, not only did the judge not bother to warn (which means that none of that "evidence" is admissable) but he was the one that insisted time and again that Guy answer these no-way-out questions. So Guy's lawyer has moved that any "evidence" from that previous trial (where Guy was just a witness) be removed entirely from consideration.
The prosecutor was unable to formulate a reply to this motion (what does an apprentice prosecutor say when someone wipes out every piece of evidence she has by reading from multiple passages in the constitution and other legal findings?!) and so asked for time to consider her answer. The judge gave her until this Friday to think through her answer.
Ultimately the prosecutor is in an untenable position. She has the job of proving to the court that an innocent man is guilty. And Guy's lawyer is systematically removing the illegal attempts to fabricate a case against Guy.
We are praying that the prosecutor will choose to drop the case on Friday. Please join us in praying for a speedy conclusion to this case and for justice to be accomplished. Pray also for the prosecutor -- she's really in a tough spot at this point...
If you answer, "I haven't," then it looks like you are still beating her. But if you answer something like "a long time ago" then it looks like you used to beat her but eventually stopped. If you never beat your wife then you can't answer the question. It's a lose-lose situation, and if you aren't given the option to challenge the validity of the question itself then you have no way out. It's entrapment.
Roughly a year ago Guy was called as a defense witness in the trial against David Brown. During the course of the testimony the judge himself challenged Guy with a set of questions very similar to the "when did you stop beating your wife" question. And he absolutely disallowed Guy any possibility of challenging the question or any non-answering of the question -- even though Guy specifically asked for each of these. When Guy finally gave an answer to this lose-lose type of question it is obvious that his answer appears to be incriminating (just like if the person in the example above answered saying "but I didn't stop beating my wife"). But just as obviously there are very real reasons why Albania has laws that prevent this sort of thing.
(The actual series of questions surrounded a core question of "why didn't YOU report this crime"? The actual answer was that Guy didn't find out until much later and at that point he was told that the crime had been reported. But the judge didn't allow Guy to answer in that vein -- he insisted on an answer of why Guy himself/personally didn't "re-report" the crime. If the judge doesn't allow your answer "it was already reported" then what DO you say?!?)
More on this later...
Yesterday was the next installment in the ongoing saga of Guy's trial. It corresponded with my 40th birthday and I was really hoping the judge would give me a birthday present in the form of throwing the case out of court or something, but such was not to be.
We went through the usual filing into court, security, etc. We were in a different room this time and a news crew showed up this time -- seemed pretty promising.
After standing for the judge (and going through the now-expected formalities of identifying the various players and approving a new translator) we settled in for what was hoped to be an hour or so of actual judicial argument. There were a few more of us than on previous court days (30-35?) and the new room was a little smaller, but we all managed to scrunch in. The prosecutor started out looking a little more relaxed, but within a couple minutes her hands were shaking every time she lifted them off her papers. (I think we're all starting to feel sorry for her...)
The prosecutor had no additional motions. So Guy's lawyer had the opportunity to start his own motions. His first motion was to suppress evidence which the prosecution had which was obtained illegally. This is basically the notes taken at the trial of David Brown when Guy gave testimony for the defense and the judge asked him the series of entrapping questions and gave him no warning. Guy's lawyer read the exact sections in the Albanian law which are relevant. And it is crystal clear from the Albanian law that the judge was COMPLETELY off base. Obviously to start with he had a clear responsibility NOT to entrap a witness (shouldn't this go without saying?!). But beyond this he is required to warn a witness if she/he makes any statement which could be construed as self incriminating. And legally any testimony that is given before that warning is explicitly excluded from any future court cases against that witness -- for the exact reasons we're seeing here.
Well, not only did the judge not bother to warn (which means that none of that "evidence" is admissable) but he was the one that insisted time and again that Guy answer these no-way-out questions. So Guy's lawyer has moved that any "evidence" from that previous trial (where Guy was just a witness) be removed entirely from consideration.
The prosecutor was unable to formulate a reply to this motion (what does an apprentice prosecutor say when someone wipes out every piece of evidence she has by reading from multiple passages in the constitution and other legal findings?!) and so asked for time to consider her answer. The judge gave her until this Friday to think through her answer.
Ultimately the prosecutor is in an untenable position. She has the job of proving to the court that an innocent man is guilty. And Guy's lawyer is systematically removing the illegal attempts to fabricate a case against Guy.
We are praying that the prosecutor will choose to drop the case on Friday. Please join us in praying for a speedy conclusion to this case and for justice to be accomplished. Pray also for the prosecutor -- she's really in a tough spot at this point...
Thanks for these explanations. I didn't realize what a good sign the junior level of the new prosecutor was. How hopeful.
ReplyDeleteAnd is Dave Brown still in prison, with his trial awaiting the end of this one?
- Jen