Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Media, Politics, Society

PORTEOUS TRIAL — OPENING STATEMENT

We have completed the opening statements. While I deviated a bit in presentation, here is the written opening statement.

Now back to the action . . .

Opening Statement.Porteous.final

61 thoughts on “PORTEOUS TRIAL — OPENING STATEMENT”

  1. Blouise,

    The punchline is that the re-cross did take considerably less time than the objections and arguments about limiting re-cross.

  2. For cryin’ out loud … his recross could be done if these Senators stop repeating themselves … talk, talk, talk

  3. Wow – beautifully written opening statement.

    Early on I was struck by this:

    “Impeachments are about not one judge but all judges . . . and the constitutional guarantees under which they serve.”

    Considering how so many Republicans are ethically-challenged these days, I’m disappointed you didn’t go for:

    “Impeachments are about not one judge but all judges – indeed all Congresspersons and Presidents [slow and sober gaze about the room]. . . and the constitutional guarantees under which they serve.”

    😀

  5. Eniobob,

    Both Creely and Amato lost their licenses to practice law *forever* because of their friendship/association with Porteous. I can see why they would be somewhat bitter–if they are.

    “Two lawyers who funnelled thousands of dollars to Judge Thomas Porteous, now facing impeachment in Congress, have permanently resigned from practicing law in Louisiana, the state Supreme Court said Friday.”

    http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/two_lawyers_who_paid_judge_tho.html

  6. BIL:

    I am sure that I have never been complimented better that your few words above!

  7. mespo,

    Given what I’ve read of Jefferson, I don’t think he’d mind the edit one bit.

  8. From JT’s Opening Satement:

    “James Madison stated it best when he warned that removal must be based on a high showing and standard to avoid interpretations “so vague [as to be] the equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate.”

    *************************

    Madison usually did.

    I will await the presentation of evidence but I will say that my own admittedly ignorant view of impeachments is simply that a high standard of conduct exists for those in public office — and the higher the office, the higher the standard of conduct. Like Madison I wouldn’t adopt an “appearance of impropriety” standard but not too much more. Public servants need to realize the Biblical admonition- that to whom much is given, much is expected.

    A famous story illustrates the point about the constitutionally mandated precariousness of public office: President Thomas Jefferson is said to have been asked by a visiting European dignitary about a particularly accusatory newspaper article aimed at the President. “Why do you not have the fellow hung who dares to write these abominable lies?” asked the incensed royal.

    The President replied, “What! Hang the guardians of the public morals? No sir,– Rather would I protect the spirit of freedom which dictates even that degree of abuse. Put that paper into your pocket, my good friend, carry it with you to Europe, and when you hear anyone doubt the reality of American freedom, show them that paper and tell them where you found it.” “But is it not shocking that virtuous characters should be defamed?” replied the Baron. “Let their actions refute such libels. Believe me virtue is not long darkened by the clouds of calumny; and the temporary pain which it causes is infinitely overweighed by the safety it insures against degeneracy in the principles and conduct of public functionaries. When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.” (Winter in Washington, 1807)(Life of Jefferson, Ch. 32)

    And I would add to Jefferson’s last sentence(with no right or credential to do so whatsoever), “to be disposed of at the whim or constancy of the people.”

  9. Former Federal LEO :

    That seems to explain why he-Creely-has an attitude.
    “Mr. Creely lost his law license because of his “mentor” Porteous’ proceedings before Congress and the 5th Circuit Court.”

  10. Blouise,

    The Chairwoman has been very good about keeping on time so I have not “wasted” any bandwidth.

    They are replaying Prof. Turley’s opening statements on C-Span 3 for those who missed it (until about 4:20 EDT)

  11. FFLEO,

    They are supposed to be back at 4:20 and then run past 6:30 unless they have to stop to attend a vote at 5:30. I kid you not.

  12. I’m not able to watch, so I’ve been reading the Prof’s notes for the opening statement – I’ve gotten through the opening and Article 1 so far.

    Big picture – this is an interesting case. On the one hand, we know that there is some amount of judicial corruption in the US, and stamping it out would help all of us. On the other hand, I think that Prof. Turley is right to imply that we want judges to feel secure in their position, and that they shouldn’t merely serve “at the pleasure” of anyone. Judge Porteous’ own rulings on controversial issues may be good examples of why this insulation from political worry is important.

    I’ve read the Times Picayune’s very strongly worded editorial, which calls for the removal of Judge Porteous. I am concerned that the weakness of the case against the judge (and the likely brilliance of his defense) will simply result in an increase in cynicism towards and a decrease in trust of the judiciary. It is unfortunate that someone who appears to be qualified to make important rulings on the federal bench has such a “messy” history as a small town judge.

    I haven’t read all the articles of impeachment yet, but on the whole, this seems like a “lose-lose” situation. Either a federal judge is impeached on problematically low standards, which in turn creates problems for future judges, or the public perceives that a corrupt judge has “gotten away with it.”

    Regarding the Prof’s statement on Article 1, I was a bit concerned about his discussion of the “bounty” situation created for the Judge’s friend, Gardner. While it certainly sounds nasty and ethically problematic (to say the least), it doesn’t seem to directly bear on the charge that the Judge should have recused himself. There may be more to that situation, but it struck me, from the Prof’s statements, that this had the same logical flaw as an ad hominem attack – just as a despicable person can sometimes tell the truth, a judge can be the subject of an unethical attack to trick him into recusing himself, AND have other circumstances that create the appearance of impropriety, and thus, he should recuse himself.

    Even if the Judge didn’t KNOW that his son was going to get thousands of dollars in wedding gifts from the lawyers at the time he was ruling on the case (or making his decision to recuse himself), I can certainly imagine a corrupt environment where there is an expectation that such actions will be rewarded at a later date. (I’m from Chicago, so, yes, I can imagine such an environment…)

    Also, I can certainly see a situation where in a normal criminal case, Citizen X taking a certain action doesn’t rise to the level where a prosecutor should bring charges, but when Citizen X is a Judge, a higher standard should be applied. It’s possible that none of the charges against Judge Porteous fit this situation, but then, maybe some of them do.

    Nonetheless, Article 1 does sound like a problematically weak charge.

  14. Interesting–lap dance testimony before the Senate. However, that does not necessarily lead to a quid pro quo of lap dances for the judge’s favoritism.

    The judge does not seem like a good person from the current testimony, although that it not a valid reason to impeach him.

  15. I am impressed… the opening statement starts off with a anecdote from “Silver Blaze” and Sherlock Holmes (I love the Sherlock Holmes stories), gives a little slap to the Times Picayune, quote Macbeth, goes back to “Silver Blaze” (no bark, no bite), and brings in a nice saying that could be a New Orleans cultural reference (“it’s close enough for jazz”).

    With a repertoire like this, I wonder what’s to come!

    BTW… a friend who earned his law degree from Tulane and practiced in Louisiana for 15 years has vowed never to return to Louisiana to practice law again. Unlike the rest of the U.S., which is based on British Common Law, Louisiana is based on French Provincial law which is not as friendly to the common folk as it should be.

  16. Thanks for the current documents Professor Turley, I read each one, and they are very helpful.

  17. I got a late start watching, so I’m a couple of hours behind from the live C-SPAN feed. I just finished watching the Professor’s opening, which I thought was excellent.

    It successfully emphasized the underlying high crimes and misdemeanors standard, filled in gaps in the House’s version of the facts which strongly undercut their case (particularly revelatory were the facts that all the witnesses the House cited agreed that the gifts were not bribes, which the two House managers had implied; and that there had been 12 prior judges for the case at issue in Article I), highlighted last minute changes in the House’s case based on new favorable evidence, and presented an alternative explanation for each event cited by the House managers.

    I’m very much looking forward to witnesses being called, and am fast forwarding through the break as I type.

  18. Good deal getting the dep in….Seems like a shark as a witness. He made an agreement with the Attorney Discipline Board or something like that and he has sour grapes…..I am not convinced that he is a credible witness at all….

Comments are closed.