time will tell.

www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/13/moussaoui.trial.ap/index.html

Angry judge questions U.S. death case against Moussaoui
Judge to consider witness coaching by government lawyers

Monday, March 13, 2006; Posted: 10:47 a.m. EST (15:47 GMT)

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (AP) -- An angry federal judge unexpectedly recessed the death penalty trial of al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to consider whether government violations of her rules against coaching witnesses should remove the death penalty as an option.

The stunning development came at the opening of the fifth day of the trial as the government informed the judge and the defense over the weekend that a lawyer for the Federal Aviation Administration had coached four government FAA witnesses.

The coaching violated the rule set by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema that no witness should hear trial testimony in advance.

This case maybe in jeparody because of US government misconduct.  This guy could get off.  We will just have to wait to see what happens next.  This is really, really sad because this is not a silly TV show, this is real life, with real life implications.

I just hope that the govt can get this case back on track.

He aint getting off. Maybe he will not be killed.

It amazes me, it really does. With this type of case meaning so much to soooo many people, that people still go and screw things up.

I think they are just talking mistrial or limiting punishment to death penalty.

No one has said jeorpady has been attached yet.  Legal scholars please explain when jeopardy gets attached and doesn't when a trial has already begun but not concluded.

Isn't coaching legal?

I thought that lawyers are allowed to sit witnesses down, go over evidence and ask questions that both sides may ask.

Or have I just seen too many movies?

If they screwed this deal up then whoever was responsible should be charged with something.

Quoted: I think they are just talking mistrial or limiting punishment to death penalty. No one has said jeorpady has been attached yet.  Legal scholars please explain when jeopardy gets attached and doesn't when a trial has already begun but not concluded.

 By saying something is "in jeopardy" it means there is a chance that a desired outcome may not be reached, it's not a legal term.  In this case, because of government incompetence the shitbag defendant could go free or get a life sentence and not get put to death (the desired outcome).  Hope that clears things up.  MJD

Quoted: Quoted: I think they are just talking mistrial or limiting punishment to death penalty. No one has said jeorpady has been attached yet.  Legal scholars please explain when jeopardy gets attached and doesn't when a trial has already begun but not concluded.  By saying something is "in jeopardy" it means there is a chance that a desired outcome may not be reached, it's not a legal term.  In this case, because of government incompetence the shitbag defendant could go free or get a life sentence and not get put to death (the desired outcome).  Hope that clears things up.  MJD

thanks, I am no legal scholar so I am probably wrong on the terms.  

Perhaps you can clear this up.  Is it true that once a trial proceeds past some point and it cannot be continued, the person cannot be tried again because of rules against double jeopardy.   However it the trial is stopped before some point, then it is just stopped and the prosecutor can decide to retry the case if he  wishes.  If this is true, what is that point in the trial?

Quoted: Isn't coaching legal? I thought that lawyers are allowed to sit witnesses down, go over evidence and ask questions that both sides may ask. Or have I just seen too many movies?

In this case the judge issued orders that this kind of stuff is unacceptable.  From NBC4.com:

"...The rule was that no witness should hear trial testimony in advance.

"This is the second significant error by the government affecting the constitutional rights of this defendant and more importantly the integrity of the criminal justice system of the United States in the context of a death case," Brinkema told lawyers outside the presence of the jury...."

MJD

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think they are just talking mistrial or limiting punishment to death penalty. No one has said jeorpady has been attached yet.  Legal scholars please explain when jeopardy gets attached and doesn't when a trial has already begun but not concluded.  By saying something is "in jeopardy" it means there is a chance that a desired outcome may not be reached, it's not a legal term.  In this case, because of government incompetence the shitbag defendant could go free or get a life sentence and not get put to death (the desired outcome).  Hope that clears things up.  MJD thanks, I am no legal scholar so I am probably wrong on the terms.   Perhaps you can clear this up.  Is it true that once a trial proceeds past some point and it cannot be continued, the person cannot be tried again because of rules against double jeopardy.   However it the trial is stopped before some point, then it is just stopped and the prosecutor can decide to retry the case if he  wishes.  If this is true, what is that point in the trial?

Here's a quick run-down of double jeopardy:  The trial opens, opening statements are given, testimony and evidence is presented, but then there is a problem (misconduct, witness tampering, etc.) and the case is dismissed.  Defendant goes free.  If the prosecution wants, they can re-file the charges, but any evidence and testimony already presented in the first case cannot be reused in the second trial.  If there is other evidence that was not introduced, it can be used.  I may have over-simplified but this should help out some.  MJD

Quoted: Isn't coaching legal? I thought that lawyers are allowed to sit witnesses down, go over evidence and ask questions that both sides may ask. Or have I just seen too many movies?

Coaching witnesses is legal, "coaching" them is not....eye of the beholder.  I guess what they are saying is that rehearsing them is OK, but giving them the exact dialogue is not.