The first day of the trial went very well for Pawlowski. It was determined that Pawlowski can indeed testify in his own defense. In stage presence, the prosecution seems no match for Jack McMahon, Pawlowski's high power Philadelphia lawyer. While the judge did demonstrate that he wouldn't allow McMahon to bully, his extensive courtroom experience was never the less apparent. Although the tapes played clearly showed that Pawlowski was annoyed about how little some contributors ponied up, there was no quid pro quo arrangement demonstrated , which is necessary for a conviction. Although Pawlowski's expectations about contributions was clear enough, again from a legal threshold, the statements were implicit, short of a required explicit arrangement. Even the Eagles victory worked for Ed yesterday, with the Philadelphia media being a no-show for day one. If it had been a one day trial, Ed would have walked. While it is not a one day trial, it was a very important day, the jury's first impression.
I did NOT attend yesterday's proceeding. This report is based on feedback from several people whose power of observation I know and trust.
illustration for The Morning Call by Bill Ternay
A direct quid pro quo is not necessary under the McDonnell standard. An implied quid pro quo is sufficient. Circumstantial evidence can be used to infer a quid pro quo. What is necessary is a donation and a subsequent official act that a politician would not take for any ordinary citizen and which involves more than indirect action (for example, bid rigging). That's the reason for all the reported McMahon theatrics and bullying and the decision to put Pawlowski on the stand and expose him to meerciless cross examination. Pawlowski's decision to testify is essentially a hail Mary.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way Pawlowski escapes except possibly on appeal - and that's a longshot. A juror hold out is also unlikely. I'm sure McMahon has told Pawlowski as much.
The tragedy will not be a Pawlowski acquittal. It will be an Allentown city government where corruption continues unabated.
The direct quid pro quo is an older standard that has not been in effect for several decades.
ReplyDeleterobert@5:39-40. our interpretation of McDonnell differs somewhat. the court ruled that politicians are expected to solicit contributions, and also expected to accommodate their constituents. the case raised the bar to the point where an explicit arrangement must be shown to deliver a specific concession in exchange for a specific contribution. the investigation started before the McDonnell case, and pleas were entered based on it. although the FBI is motivated to utilize their "evidence", it may not rise to the new level. i believe that McDonnell went too far, but it may be Pawlowski's get out of jail card.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteIt was just day one. There is a long way to go and the evidence will be presented and will accumulate. Only when it is all on the table will the jurors have their say. Let's hope justice prevails.
MM, your sources are totally off. Seth Weber, a former prosecutor and now a professor, stated he can't believe Pawlowski has not pleaded guilty yet. I sat through the first day and saw two [2] non-co-conspirators testify and artfully called his majesty a political fundraising machine. He demanded donations for official actions. That is enough in legal parlance to convict. This is only the initial swats at Pawlowski. Although McMahon showed some counter-balance, he was put in his place by the judge.
ReplyDeleteIf Pawlowski is going to detrimentally rely on his testimony, the jury pool isn't a bunch of ignorant citizens listening. To call this a hail Mary is shortsighted and optimistic in the scheme of things. If the rest of trial proceeds like this, you can guarantee a conviction on numerous counts!
I meant a hail Mary in the sense of a hope for a miracle.
ReplyDeleteNBC10 from Philadelphia was there. Your sources aren't that observant. 2 marked vehicles parked in front of the federal courthouse couldn't be more obvious.
ReplyDeleteDefendants always have the right to testify. Opening statements are not evidence; just mere proffer. If the Defense feels that, once the Government rests, that sufficient reasonable doubt has been established, or, that the Government under the McDonnell standard has not established the necessary links, then they will not have Pawlowski testify. Jurors don't hold it against Defendants for not testifying in such in such scenarios. Prosecutors always present too much redundant evidence, and in the case of tapes, a backlash against the Government is always possible if nothing is ever established beyond that the Major expects contributions and is annoyed at the sums donated. Nobody likes snitches and piling on, especially if the relevant evidentiary bar is not advanced.
ReplyDelete