FORMER ABSCAM DEFENDANT FACES NEW CHARGES

[Photo from wikipedia]

Former Pennsylvania Congressman Michael Myers was charged this week with conspiring to violate election laws by allegedly bribing an election official to "stuff" the ballot box for candidates who had hired Myers to assist in their campaigns.

As a former federal prosecutor, I once prosecuted the largest vote buying case in American history.

Myers was previously convicted of bribery in 1981 in connection with the infamous Abscam scandal.  During that investigation, Myers was videotaped while accepting a bribe from an undercover agent.  At that time, Myers reportedly had said, on tape, "money talks in this business and bullshit walks."

Of course, Myers is presumed to be innocent, unless and until proven guilty in court.

UPDATE REGARDING FISA MEMO

[Photo from wikipedia]

Here's a tart response today to the FBI and DOJ complaints about the FISA memo's release from the House Intelligence Commitee Chairman Devin Nunes at the House's website:

“Having stonewalled Congress’ demands for information for nearly a year, it’s no surprise to see the FBI and DOJ issue spurious objections to allowing the American people to see information related to surveillance abuses at these agencies. The FBI is intimately familiar with ‘material omissions’ with respect to their presentations to both Congress and the courts, and they are welcome to make public, to the greatest extent possible, all the information they have on these abuses. Regardless, it’s clear that top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counter-intelligence investigation during an American political campaign. Once the truth gets out, we can begin taking steps to ensure our intelligence agencies and courts are never misused like this again.” 

OUCH!!  It's getting hotter in D.C. and the memo hasn't even been released yet! What do you think?!

Presumption of Innocence: The Decision Not To Testify

All my career, both as former prosecutor and current defense attorney, I have heard people say, "If the defendant is really innocent, why didn't he take the witness stand?" If you were chosen to be a juror in a criminal case, could you follow a judge's instructions that you must not hold it against the defendant if he or she chose not to testify?

The 5th Amendment essentially protects each of us against having to testify and perhaps (unintentionally) incriminating ourselves. Also, judges always instruct juries that each defendant is presumed to be innocent and that the defendant does not have to testify. But like a lot of defense lawyers, I live in the real world and I am always afraid that some jurors will overlook the judge's instructions and hold it against my client if he decides not to take the witness stand.

As a result, I always carefully discuss the pros and cons with my client before my client decides whether or not to take the stand.

It is important to point out that there are many reasons, aside from any question as to guilt or innocence, as to why a defendant might choose not to testify. For example, some defendants might be innocent, but inarticulate. In other words, in this situation, the defendant and his attorney might be afraid that, if he testifies, an experienced prosecutor might be able to twist his words and make him look guilty. In other situations, while the defendant may be innocent, he may also have a bad temper. In that situation, the defendant and his defense lawyer may fear that the prosecutor may try to make him look guilty by making him lose his cool on the witness stand. Folks, these things can happen in the real world and in a real trial!

Each criminal case is different. And in each case, it is critical that a lawyer and client should carefully consider and discuss the client's decision about testifying. But it is also important to recognize the harsh reality that some jurors may simply hold it against the defendant if he or she exercises their Constitutional right not to testify.

What do you think? Would you be able to follow a judge's instructions? And please be honest: Would you hold it against a defendant who chose not to testify?

"Paper Cases:" How the Feds Actually Prepare a White Collar Crime Case For Trial!

Let's assume you are a federal prosecutor and that you have used a team of federal agents and scores of federal grand jury subpoenas to gather tens of thousands of documents for use at the fraud trial of an alleged white collar criminal. What do you do with all those stacks of evidence? More particularly, do you want to learn how the feds actually put together a "paper case" for trial?

I can only speak for myself, but as a former federal prosecutor, I oversaw the preparation of numerous complex "paper cases" for trial. And believe me, it can be a daunting task! For example, in my major fraud and public corruption case against State Senator Charles Walker, I personally examined over a million pages of evidence which were used at trial.

The key is organization. In other words, you must first carefully organize your evidence. For instance, I would generally first sit down with my case agent and go through the boxes and stacks of paper evidence, often gathered from scores of banks and other businesses. We would initially identify which exhibits would be helpful at trial, and then begin a list of trial exhibits, which also identified the exhibits' sources. We also assigned a series of exhibit numbers to each group of exhibits, often based on the exhibits' sources, (e.g. the "3000-BA series" would be exhibits from "Bank A"). Next, we would generally decide which exhibits, or pages of exhibits, needed to be scanned so that the exhibits could be shown to trial witnesses, (and the jury), in an effective manner. In this way, we eventually prepared an exhibit list.

Next, we would prepare a witness list. I would discuss with my case agent which witnesses we intended to subpoena for trial. I also needed to begin thinking about witness order, while compiling my witness list. In the Walker case, we prepared a list of over 150 witnesses, (not including records custodians). The witness list, like the exhibit list, will often be modified a number of times before a federal criminal trial.

Finally, in order to prepare a complex federal case for trial, you must "marry" the exhibit list with the witness list! In other words, you have to prepare a new "witness-exhibit list," which contains each of the witnesses and the particular exhibits, now identified by numbers, (out of all the thousands of exhibits originally obtained), which will be introduced, or otherwise used, while each particular witness is on the witness stand. Also, prior to trial, a federal prosecutor will need to decide the order in which each chosen exhibit will be shown to each of the witnesses. (I also made it my practice to laboriously type or write out each question for each of the witnesses, including carefully planning the precise place in each witness' testimony when I intended to show them an exhibit. I found that this thorough pre-trial preparation helped my trials run more quickly and smoothly. Such intense preparation also helped me "not have to think" when I became fatigued during a lengthy federal criminal trial!)

Each trial lawyer has his or her own way of preparing for trial. But these are simply some of the steps I have followed in preparing a complex federal criminal case for trial. So, now you know how the feds, (or at least one former fed), actually do it!

A Proud Day At The Goolsby Law Firm!!!

This is a proud, happy day at our family law firm in Martinez, Georgia! You see, our family of lawyers will be getting bigger! Presently, The Goolsby Law Firm is composed of two lawyers, including me, Richard Goolsby, Sr., and our oldest son, Richard Goolsby, Jr., (a father and son attorney team). And now, we are proud to report that my second son also begins the study of law today! He has three tough years of law school ahead of him, but we wish him much success and God speed! We know he will do well!

I realize that the prospect of new lawyers being released on the world may be a bit unsettling to some of you! But please allow a proud father to boast just a little here!

And don't think that's all the Goolsby lawyers in the works! Our youngest son, a UGA undergraduate, also plans to go to law school in a couple of years, too! And I still tease our youngest child, and only daughter, that she should likewise go to law school, too, just like her three older brothers! But she may be the smartest of them all--she doesn't want to go to law school at all--instead, she wants to become a teacher!