Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster
.gif){kind=small}
e-mail:
j
Judge and Prosecutor Alone
Pat, as congressman, in mid 1987 served on the congressional banking committee. The banking committee in the course of Pat’s congressional tenure had passed an "Omnibus Act." In that act, there were specific reporting requirements regarding bank deposits. In short, deposits of $10,000.00 or more must be reported to federal agencies. Pat entered the banking committee after that provision. He later voted for the act based on his knowledge at that point. The prosecution contended Swindall must have known of the provision because he served on the banking committee. The defense contended Swindall had no knowledge of it, then called as a witness, political party adversary, Rep. Barney Frank, who had served on the banking committee from the time of the inception of the Omnibus Act. Frank testified to the highly unlikeness of Swindall having knowledge of that provision. He further testified the committee included the provision prior to Swindall’s arrival on the banking committee.
Apparently discomfited by that testimony, Gillen approached the bench and requested the prosecution and defense meet in the judge’s chambers. They did. Gillen then told Judge Freeman the prosecution had such devastating evidence, he could not present it in front of the defense. The defense immediately reminded the judge of the defendant’s 6th Amendment right to have defense present, in all of their communication. Freeman then advised he would hear Gillen alone before deciding, clearly violating Swindall’s 6th Amendment protection.
Gillen told Freeman he could prove Swindall not only knew of that provision, but actually co-authored it. Presenting that evidence, however, posed a problem due to the illegality disclosing a congressman’s acts of office in trial. He convinced Freeman Swindall should waive his right to not have congressional acts presented in court. Swindall refused to waive any rights. Judge Freeman then decided they "just shouldn’t have gotten into that area."
Gillen undoubtedly knew Swindall would not waive any rights. He turned Swindall’s rights against himself, for the judge told the jury to strike Frank’s testimony from the record. Gillen’s legerdemain effectively erased testimony proving Swindall’s innocence.
Someone may figure Pat refused because Gillen’s claim had merit. However, Gillen and Barr have had ample opportunity to dispute Swindall’s charges. They could have presented that "evidence" to the public after the trial, proclaiming it a mere technically prevented the evidence to appear in court, but could now prove their veracity to the public. Now that would be a "travesty of justice" had that evidence existed, yet could not be presented. Later, in the closing arguments to the jury, Gillen reminded them of Swindall’s "knowledge" of that section of the Omnibus Act as if it were fact, despite Barney Frank’s testimony to the contrary. He focused the jury on an area the court ordered stricken from the record. All of this transpired over a hypothetical transaction. At no point, had there been a $10,000.00 banking transaction.
The Plea Bargain
LeChasney agreed in May 1988 to plea bargain with Gillen and Barr. He plead guilty to reduce his prison sentence from 34 years to merely 4. LeChasney’s revised testimony later proved false after new evidence surfaced. Previously suppressed evidence that is.
e-mail:
j
Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster