breaking the law, for perpetrating a fraud to get judges to sign orders for wiretaps? Was anybody held accountable?
Maybe Mitchell was punished enough being married to Martha, but what about the others?
If a defense attorney violated a criminal statute in that way, there would be Bar Association actions and possible criminal charges. But time and again, it’s been the same old story: the government disregards the rules and nothing happens.
There was a mob case in Philadelphia where the government had a videotape of several gangsters meeting on the boardwalk in Atlantic City outside the Resorts International Casino-Hotel. One of the gangsters was Nicky “The Crow” Caramandi. He became a government informant and testified in a half dozen cases.
Caramandi was a consummate con man who became a hit man for the Philadelphia crime family in the 1980s. They called him “The Crow,” he said, because “a crow is a shrewd bird.” He was always getting one over on people, scamming them out of their money. But I think his ultimate scam was getting a deal with the government. He ended up doing less than five years after admitting to his involvement in four gangland homicides.
The prosecutors paraded him at almost every mob trial in Philadelphia in the late 1980s. I got to know him from the witness stand. He was the typical government witness, willing to say whatever it was the prosecution needed to make its case. And itseemed like they used that stinking videotape from Atlantic City every time he was on the stand.
There he was, on the boardwalk, meeting with the mob boss, Nicodemo “Little Nicky” Scarfo and two other gangsters. There was no audio of the meeting. And in every case the government had Caramandi, under oath, tell a different version of what was being discussed; a version that fit with the prosecution’s theory of that particular trial. They used the same video, but in one case they’re talking about whacking this guy, and in another case they’re talking about whacking that guy.
It was outrageous!
FBI agents used their informants as puppets and made them say anything they wanted. It was like a sinister courtroom version of Sesame Street . The witnesses were like Oscar the Grouch or Kermit the Frog. The prosecutors and the FBI were out of sight, manipulating the characters behind the scenes, literally putting words in their mouths.
During my closing arguments to the jury, I would try to make that point by creating my own “puppet.” I’d take a black magic marker and draw two eyes on the fleshy part of my left hand above my thumb and index finger. Then I’d use a red marker to draw a mouth. I’d hold my hand up, with the eyes and mouth facing the jury, and I’d play the role of the prosecutor. I’d tell the jury this is what they’ve heard. I’d pretend to be a courtroom ventriloquist. I’d ask my hand questions and then respond with an answer favorable to the government. It was a show-and-tell way to make the point.
Prosecutors would roll their eyes, but I didn’t care. The government used the same techniques and offered the same justifications for what they did in almost every trial.
I’ve cross-examined numerous FBI agents about the way they debrief cooperating witnesses and record that information. Every time it’s the same mind-boggling story. Agents are required to filea memo after every debriefing session with a cooperator. The report is a written synopsis of what was discussed. It’s called a “302” because that’s the filing number that the FBI uses to designate this type of memo. Agents swear by those memos, sometimes to the point of absurdity.
When I cross-examine an agent about a 302, my line of questioning usually goes like this:
“When you did this interview, did you have a tape recorder?”
“No.”
“Did you have access to a tape recorder?”
“Yes, I did.”
“Wouldn’t it have been more accurate to record the witness’s statement verbatim, rather than
Maybe Mitchell was punished enough being married to Martha, but what about the others?
If a defense attorney violated a criminal statute in that way, there would be Bar Association actions and possible criminal charges. But time and again, it’s been the same old story: the government disregards the rules and nothing happens.
There was a mob case in Philadelphia where the government had a videotape of several gangsters meeting on the boardwalk in Atlantic City outside the Resorts International Casino-Hotel. One of the gangsters was Nicky “The Crow” Caramandi. He became a government informant and testified in a half dozen cases.
Caramandi was a consummate con man who became a hit man for the Philadelphia crime family in the 1980s. They called him “The Crow,” he said, because “a crow is a shrewd bird.” He was always getting one over on people, scamming them out of their money. But I think his ultimate scam was getting a deal with the government. He ended up doing less than five years after admitting to his involvement in four gangland homicides.
The prosecutors paraded him at almost every mob trial in Philadelphia in the late 1980s. I got to know him from the witness stand. He was the typical government witness, willing to say whatever it was the prosecution needed to make its case. And itseemed like they used that stinking videotape from Atlantic City every time he was on the stand.
There he was, on the boardwalk, meeting with the mob boss, Nicodemo “Little Nicky” Scarfo and two other gangsters. There was no audio of the meeting. And in every case the government had Caramandi, under oath, tell a different version of what was being discussed; a version that fit with the prosecution’s theory of that particular trial. They used the same video, but in one case they’re talking about whacking this guy, and in another case they’re talking about whacking that guy.
It was outrageous!
FBI agents used their informants as puppets and made them say anything they wanted. It was like a sinister courtroom version of Sesame Street . The witnesses were like Oscar the Grouch or Kermit the Frog. The prosecutors and the FBI were out of sight, manipulating the characters behind the scenes, literally putting words in their mouths.
During my closing arguments to the jury, I would try to make that point by creating my own “puppet.” I’d take a black magic marker and draw two eyes on the fleshy part of my left hand above my thumb and index finger. Then I’d use a red marker to draw a mouth. I’d hold my hand up, with the eyes and mouth facing the jury, and I’d play the role of the prosecutor. I’d tell the jury this is what they’ve heard. I’d pretend to be a courtroom ventriloquist. I’d ask my hand questions and then respond with an answer favorable to the government. It was a show-and-tell way to make the point.
Prosecutors would roll their eyes, but I didn’t care. The government used the same techniques and offered the same justifications for what they did in almost every trial.
I’ve cross-examined numerous FBI agents about the way they debrief cooperating witnesses and record that information. Every time it’s the same mind-boggling story. Agents are required to filea memo after every debriefing session with a cooperator. The report is a written synopsis of what was discussed. It’s called a “302” because that’s the filing number that the FBI uses to designate this type of memo. Agents swear by those memos, sometimes to the point of absurdity.
When I cross-examine an agent about a 302, my line of questioning usually goes like this:
“When you did this interview, did you have a tape recorder?”
“No.”
“Did you have access to a tape recorder?”
“Yes, I did.”
“Wouldn’t it have been more accurate to record the witness’s statement verbatim, rather than
Similar Books
