Monday, December 08, 2008

Abouhalkah - Not Much of a Lawyer

In Yael's world, deponents should volunteer information in their depositions. In the real world, they shouldn't. It's up to the examining attorney to ask the right questions, and leading questions often fail to get the complete picture.

Mr. Abouhalkah, if you're going to accuse someone of inconsistency, you truly ought to find some real inconsistency.

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Sophia said...

Midtown Miscreant isn't a lawyer either, but he pretty much nailed it:

Then the Funk in the only smart move he has made through all of this, reaches a settlement, leaving the city holding a dripping handful of doo doo. In other words, the Funk got out cheap. and now the city,that would be all of US, will pay out the wazoo.

In civil, as in criminal, law, the last person to settle/plea frequently pays the highest price. The plaintiff cares most about adequate compensation, but the numbers still work out as a distribution of blame.

I believe the money comes from the same place regardless of how much is allocated to the mayor and the city. But I still resent that the City is charged with a larger share of the responsibility. I guess it makes sense, to the degree that none of this would've happened if voters hadn't elected him. It still rubs me the wrong way.

Back on-topic, Yael isn't a lawyer, but both the Mayor and his wife did a heck of a lot of volunteering in those depos. I think Yael's point is fair to the extent that the Mayor claims he got those claims on the record under oath when he clearly didn't.

I also think Wolf made some mention in his depo of Bates suggesting some dirt to use against Brooks, but I didn't read that as motivated solely by anger at Brooks as much as a fairly typical debate within a political campaign about how negative you will go.

12/08/2008 10:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone happen to know the penalty for perjury in Missouri? This is a real question. I really would like to know.

12/08/2008 11:39 AM  
Anonymous FactMan said...

There is no pealty for perjury in Missouri.

We have a statute on the books Offenses Against the Administration of Justice (Section 575.040) but it is never enforced.

12/08/2008 12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is amazing. NO ONE has ever been prosecuted and convicted for perjury in the state of Missouri?

I am floored.

12/08/2008 2:39 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

yeah, right, you can lie under oath in MO?


12/08/2008 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

575.040. 1. A person commits the crime of perjury if, with the purpose to deceive, he knowingly testifies falsely to any material fact upon oath or affirmation legally administered, in any official proceeding before any court, public body, notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths.

2. A fact is material, regardless of its admissibility under rules of evidence, if it could substantially affect, or did substantially affect, the course or outcome of the cause, matter or proceeding.

3. Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of this crime, and it is no defense that:

(1) The defendant mistakenly believed the fact to be immaterial; or

(2) The defendant was not competent, for reasons other than mental disability or immaturity, to make the statement.

4. It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection 1 of this section that the actor retracted the false statement in the course of the official proceeding in which it was made provided he did so before the falsity of the statement was exposed. Statements made in separate hearings at separate stages of the same proceeding, including but not limited to statements made before a grand jury, at a preliminary hearing, at a deposition or at previous trial, are made in the course of the same proceeding.

5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of retraction under subsection 4 of this section.

6. Perjury committed in any proceeding not involving a felony charge is a class D felony.

7. Perjury committed in any proceeding involving a felony charge is a class C felony unless:

(1) It is committed during a criminal trial for the purpose of securing the conviction of an accused for murder, in which case it is a class A felony; or

(2) It is committed during a criminal trial for the purpose of securing the conviction of an accused for any felony except murder, in which case it is a class B felony.

12/08/2008 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(2) The defendant was not competent, for reasons other than mental disability or immaturity, to make the statement.

Otherwise known as "The Gloria Defense."

What is the penalty for a D Felony?

12/08/2008 5:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark Fuhrman got zero jail time for his perjury in the OJ case. In that case they had the guy ON TAPE committing perjury. He was fined $200.

So if committing perjury in a murder trial only gets a $200 fine there is no way a prosecutor would go after perjury in this case.

12/08/2008 5:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course Fuhrman was testifying FOR the prosecutors so they may have had other reasons to make the problem go away -- or at least go to Idaho.

12/08/2008 5:52 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

There are two main reasons that nobody here is going to be prosecuted for perjury. The first reason is that there was no perjury. The second reason is that there was no perjury. If you need a third reason, see numbers one and two and extrapolate.

12/08/2008 6:19 PM  
Anonymous Sophia said...

Perjury isn't just lying under oath, it's a material lie. The most obvious lie in the transcripts I read was Burnetta claiming she didn't know that a black man would take exception to being called "boy." As obvious as it was, that doesn't make it material to the case.

The only thing sillier than speculation about perjury charges is people anticipating defamation claims. Just because someone acts like an asshole doesn't mean you have an actionable claim. And just because you might have an actionable claim doesn't mean it makes a damn bit of sense in the long run to pursue it.

12/08/2008 7:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think there's much to the perjury issue. Even if it were, how much more damaging can this be to Funkhouser? I mean the guy has bludgeoned his reputation. Attempting to pursue perjury would be like trying to finish off his reputation with paper cuts.
Does anybody think that there are no more Funkee surprises around the corner? I for one want to see this year's Christmas letter. A recall petition would certainly spice things up. A lack of attendance to his so-called forum would certainly drive home a message.
Unfortunately, we have 28 more months of this idiot.

12/08/2008 8:07 PM  
Anonymous Finn de Semana said...

Gloria committing perjury would be, yet again, another big deal.

You see, Gloria in a deposition will forget where she is, and just start talking and answering questions with no long-term goal or continuity in mind.

That's her m.o.

She a perfect candidate for perjury.

And a hard penalty for perjury doesn't matter - public knowledge that a chief policy advisor, defacto chief of staff for the Mayor lied under oath is a potent fact.

And anybody who knows Gloria knows she lied.

12/08/2008 9:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(2) The defendant was not competent, for reasons other than mental disability or immaturity, to make the statement.

Otherwise known as "The Gloria Defense."

12/08/2008 11:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home