Federal prosecutors in Newark want to have it their way and swap the fair and impartial US District Judge William J. Martini for a more prosecution friendly judge that helps in the quest to railroad Paul Bergrin. Hopefully the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals will send them the message that this ain't Burger King and they can't have it their way.
So which specific judge do prosecutors want on the Paul Bergrin trials in the future? Perhaps one that will be happy about receiving a Christmas card from an AUSA while deciding how to rule in relation to the next trial, shut-up about it, and rule it their way. They need a wink and nod judge at this point if the laughable evidence from the last trial bears any similarity to evidence in future trials. The main question that I have is: Who are the contenders for the position?
This is an odd group of federal prosecutors. They claimed solid evidence in the last trial, but produced only a lengthy parade of convicted felons exchanging testimony for sentence reductions and jailhouse informants that witnessed nothing at all seeking the same. If the evidence is solid then prosecutors should have nothing to fear; however, that is the main problem with the last trial: Prosecutors refuse to admit they had no actual evidence of anything. As if each actually believes every word stated by each so-called witness. As if! That in itself is laughable, or they're all dumb as dirt. Which is it? Of course there's the other possibility... that the convicted felons were each instructed and coached on wording prior to testimony, even though it was a big fail.
As it turns out, Lawrence Lustberg has really come through for Paul Bergrin. I owe the man an apology as I really do not know what transpired in that other case I mentioned in a previous post. Just because a defendant is not guilty and takes a plea deal doesn't mean that it had anything at all to do with the attorney. Perhaps it was a simple case of the price is right.
Yes, if the evidence in the next trial has any similarity at all to the evidence of the last trial, well, federal prosecutors do need to judge shop. I consider Judge Martini to be impartial and even feel that he sided with prosecutors on certain points. There are judges that would have acquitted Paul Bergrin and not just discussed it and considered it. The truth is that there should have been an acquittal on all counts. The simple fact is that there was no evidence.
So now we all wait for the ruling from the appeals court and eventually find out if federal prosecutors get to have it their way. Sore losers that they are, it is unlikely to stop at the appeals court if they do not get the opportunity to judge shop. This group has it in for Paul Bergrin, obviously, as they've already made too many deals with the devils (many of them) in this pursuit. The only remaining question is how far will they go?
I think they want a show trial.
Source article by Jason Grant with The Star-Ledger: