Newsweek: Palin's lawyer already questioning witnesses who potentially could testify against her!

[kpete]

Palin's lawyer has already questioned 2 witnesses
Palin's lawyer questioning witnesses who potentially could testify against her in Trooper case
By STEVE QUINN | AP
Sep 5, 2008

...........

With the country's attention focused on Palin the national candidate, lawyer Thomas Van Flein has worked aggressively to undermine an Alaskan legislative inquiry and has started questioning potentially damaging witnesses against the governor.

.......................

The legal tactic of pre-emptive questioning gives the governor a distinct advantage in the controversy because it means that she already knows at the outset the detailed accounts of potential witnesses against her. The procedure also locks important witnesses into the accounts they give. If the witnesses provide statements now that are favorable to Palin, the witnesses' credibility could be called into question if they make statements in the future that are unfavorable to her.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157257

Sounds like a bullying tactic to me. Scare the witnesses into making sure they cross every 't' and dot every 'i', or risk being called a liar on the stand. Brilliant.

Couple this with the news that the Troopergate investigation is being moved up, I'd say this does not look good at all.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/5/134419/8555/870/587975

more at:

[hughee99]

1. Isn't this, in general, what competent lawyers do? n/t

[Canuckistanian]

5. This is like a defense lawyer questioning prosecution witnesses before a trial

VERY prejudicial and threatening.

If this were a court case, the judge might disallow testimony from those witnesses.

[roguevalley]

7. they have said they require subpeonas to testify and it probably

is to protect themselves. Such a place. I would refuse to talk to the shithead.

[hughee99]

10. I thought as part of "discovery" the prosecution

was required to list all of their potential witness IN ADVANCE of the trial to allow the defense attorney to question them and prepare an adequate defense. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, but are you saying the defense is or should not be allowed to talk to prosecution witnesses until they take the stand during the trial?

[Canuckistanian]

11. Not without an agreed-upon discovery process

This isn't a court of law. This is a legislative investigation without all the nice, neat rules that govern a judicial trial.

[Canuckistanian]

2. Is that legal? Can they compel people to answer questions like that?

I'd tell the lawyer to get bent or I'd bring my own lawyer with me.

[K8-EEE]

3. what is the rule about tampering with/intimidating witnesses?

I really don't think you are supposed to go about it that way -- there's processes of "discovery" and certain procedures, you can't go around "fixing" things.

[ericgtr]

4. I don't think it's legal unless it's a deposition (sp?) where both parties are represented

in fact I am certain this isn't legal.

[yodermon]

6. obstruction of justice. n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Keywords from the summary: Aggressive, Undermine

[spanone]

9. cnn reported earlier that some witnesses who were prepared to talk, now won't

so they will have to issue subpoenas

[krkaufman]

12. . . . O B S T R U C T I O N . . . palin and simple n/t