Time to investigate the prosecutors
Roland D. writes:
As much as I dislike DSK, it is obvious that the case against him should be dismissed with prejudice (pardon the pun) so that it cannot be re-filed under a special prosecutor, either.
The NY State Bar Association should also immediately begin an investigation of the prosecutors in the DA’s office who (a) indicted DSK knowing that they had severe victim/witness credibility problems and who then (b) so unconscionably delayed notification to the bench and to the defense of those credibility problems. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys are officers of the court, and therefore have an affirmative duty to make timely notification both to the presiding judge and to their respective counterparts regarding material information of such great import to the integrity and disposition of a case.
LA replies:
That’s what’s great about the law, that it has nothing to do with our feelings about the defendant, or with whether he’s a good person or not. That’s what it means that justice is blindfolded: justice is impartial as to persons.
As to your point (a), it’s worth repeating what was revealed to VFR by an exclusive source on July 2 and confirmed by the New York Post on July 3, that Sex Crimes Unit chief Lisa Friel and a senior investigator with the unit had “serious doubts” about Diallo’s credibility “almost from the moment she reported the attack,” that they strongly urged that the indictment of DSK be delayed until more information was gathered, and that this advice was overridden. It seems to be the case that the DA’s office was acting here on the basis of politics and ideology, not proper prosecutorial procedure.
As to your point (b), as I first said on June 30, it does seem that the three week delay from June 9, when Diallo melted down in the prosecutors’ presence and thereafter refused to speak to them for 19 days, and June 30, when the prosecutors wrote the letter to the judge and the defense about Diallo’s credibility problems, poses a prima facie case of prosecutorial misconduct. DSK remained under house arrest for those three weeks after the complainant’s credibility had collapsed.
Now maybe the prosecutors would reply that while they had suspicions of Diallo, given the high profile nature of the case they needed more information backing up those suspicions before formally informing the judge about them. However, the need for more time to gather more information is also the very reason they should not have indicted Strauss-Kahn in the first place. How could they plausibly claim that they needed more time to inform the judge and the defense of Diallo’s credibility problems, after they had previously ignored the urgent advice of a top member of the DA’s office that they needed more time before indicting DSK? Does only the complainant, and not the defendant, get the favor of a careful investigation before the DA takes a decisive step against him or her?
At the very least, there must be a formal investigation of the prosecutors’ conduct in this case.
Also, of course, federal immigration authorities should initiate an investigation of Diallo’s asylee status, since she gained that status through gross lies about her experiences in her home country.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 24, 2011 07:04 AM | Send