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:
