The government refers to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that—barring newly discovered evidence—any motion for a new trial would have had to been filed no later than November 12, 2007, within seven days of the guilty verdict.
The government also aggressively argues that Kohring’s supposed discovery that the Sedwicks were related—7 to 10 days after his conviction—doesn’t constitute new evidence.
“Assuming for a moment that a ‘deep animosity’ truly existed between Kohring and Mrs. Sedwick in or around 1998, it is illogical and unreasonable for Kohring to suggest that he did not realize the familial relationship between Mrs. Sedwick and the assigned trial judge during the several months prior to his trial or, at the latest, when Mrs. Sedwick was reportedly in the courtroom near the end of the trial,” a portion of the government’s argument reads. “Kohring’s ‘new evidence’ argument might have some air of plausibility had Mrs. Sedwick’s last name been Jones or Smith, but Sedwick is a surname that is not commonplace within Alaska.”
I had pretty much the same reaction when I heard about this in early February:
And it never occurred that Judge Sedwick might be related to this Sedwick who he says was "worst political rival and enemy" until the end of the trial? How many Sedwicks do you know? I certainly would be asking questions if the judge hearing my case had the same name as my worst political rival and enemy. I wouldn't wait until a few days before my sentencing to bring it up.
[A few minutes later: Phil Munger's report on on Kohring's response to the prosecutors' filing is worth reading. A real scoop.]
What do you mean, Steve? Sedwicks are all over the place, popping up like Catholics and Mormons! LOL Just joking.
ReplyDeleteThis is pretty lame of Vic.