John Henry Browne's Response to Magitstrate's Ruling and Court Efficiency

The Anchorage Daily News reported yesterday that the Defense "Motion To Suppress Statements Allegedly Made in Violation of Miranda and the Fifth Amendment" did not persuade the magistrate judge who said the evidence should be allowed. The final decision is up to Judge Sedwick. I posted both sides' Statements of Fact in the previous two posts.

The article is interesting to me also in what it tells us about Kohring's defense attorney. He's not going to be the polite, cooperative colleague that Kott attorney Wendt was. He's may even make Anderson's attorney look warm and fuzzy. Lisa Demer further on in the article gives us Defense attorney John Henry Browne's (see a little about him in an earlier post):

Browne [Kohring's attorney] said Friday it won't be a big deal if the judge follows the recommendation and allows the evidence.

"My opinion is that Mr. Kohring didn't say anything incriminating to begin with," he said. "But I was just filing the motions in order to be a good lawyer and to make a record because I think what the government did when they told him 'You give us consent or we'll use the search warrant' is not legal."

If it won't be a big deal, then why file the motion? One big gain Browne gets by filing the motion is learning the government's version of this story. Up til the government filed their argument against the motion, he mainly had his own client's version of events. Now he gets to go into court a little better prepared knowing where the prosecutors agree with his client and where and how they don't. Fewer surprises. And saying, "It won't be a big deal" sounds like he's putting the best spin on losing, when he actually got what he needed when the government filed its argument. At least that's one interpretation of this action.

But I'm still scratching my head about this part:

Prosecutors wanted Browne to agree to allow a single FBI agent to authenticate any secretly made recordings involving Kohring before they are played for jurors.

No way, Browne responded.

That means prosecutors must call as witnesses an FBI employee directly involved with any recording they want jurors to hear. Agents from all over the country were involved in monitoring telephone calls of Veco Corp. executives as well as happenings in Suite 604 of the Baranof Hotel.

But this isn't all of the story. On the ADN Alaska politics blog Demer added a little more to this story.

Browne says in an e-mail that he filed in court on Thursday.

"I am not trying to be difficult but the GOVERNMENT is trying to put my client, who never voted for Veco, or promised to vote for Veco, in Prison. This allegation is based on the ATTEMPT to BORROW a pick-up truck, an internship that his nephew was qualified for (and brought up by Smith and Allen) and personal gifts of under $1,000. Sorry, but if that what the Government wants to do then the Government is going to have to work for it and spend every last dime of the taxpayers money doing so."

He signs it "Respectfully, JHB."

OK, his job as the Defense attorney is to give his client the best case he can. And he's reminding the taxpayers that they are paying for the government to railroad his innocent client. But given the previous two trials and Governor Palin's ability to ride the anti-corruption wave into greater than 85% popularity I'm not sure that's going to sell. People may think that forcing the FBI to fly up countless agents is just a waste of everyone's time and money. The defense in the Kott case agreed to the the arrangement the government proposed - to allow one agent to certify all the tapes. And Judge Sedwick has proven to be a very practical judge and interested in doing things efficiently, as long as the effect is neutral. On the other hand if an agent or two is unable to get to court on time and that results some tapes not being played, that helps his client, but not necessarily justice.

On the other hand, the first responder to Demer's blog post suggested the Alaska attorneys might have too cozy a relationship with the prosecutors:

Wise move not to hire an Alaskan attorney, must have found out that the only difference in prosecutor and defense attorneys in AK is who signs the paycheck and where they got their designer suit. They have to work together every day, something as insignificant as a man's life and future just gets in the way of court house harmony and future private practices. Finding "friendlier" barristers is practically unheard of. Sort of like letting the foxes run the henhouse.

But then only one of the one prosecutor will be from Alaska, the other is from DC.

It's highly unlikely that any of the jury will have read the article, let alone the blog comment so they won't be prejudiced by that. But if Browne says things like that in court, and appears to be dragging things out just for the sake of making the Prosecution work harder, I suspect the jury will see through that.