December 23, 2009

Gableman recusal motions keep piling up

This one comes from prominent defense attorney Dean A. Strang.

We have not seen this latest motion, which was filed Monday, but Prof. Richard Esenberg of Marquette Law School assures us their "rationale" is "primarily (though not quite entirely) based on the now infamous Reuben Mitchell ad and certain statements made by Gableman's lawyer, Jim Bopp, in the course of defending Justice Gableman on ethics charges stemming from the ad."

Those two things. "Not quite entirely" = certain understatement.
Bopp: It is a loophole, that had nothing to do with [Mitchell's] guilt or innocence.

Judge Snyder: "Loophole" has kind of an emotional ring to it. It wasn't so much a loophole as it just was a properly argued application of the rape shield law, was it not?

Bopp: Well, uh, it turned out to be, yes.
Yes, somehow the argument was magically transformed from "a loophole" to "not a loophole." Please. Either it was or it wasn't.

The law didn't change. Nay, not one jot nor tittle, as they say.

And we have yet to hear Mr. Bopp explain how the admission or non-admission of evidence* — upon which juries base their findings of guilt or innocence — has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

Apparently had a jury found Mitchell not guilty, Mr. Bopp would have nevertheless found him guilty and yet accused others of a "willingness to subvert our system." In the course of defending Mike Gableman.

Of course Bopp has a First Amendment right to mouth absurdities.

Coincidentally, a notorious and "shadowy" third-party Mike Gableman fan club, the Coalition For America's Families, brazenly courted a defamation suit for pulling a similar stunt, pronouncing guilty a defendant whose conviction had been reversed. With friends like these, etc.

This is how these people think, and every indication is that Mike Gableman thinks this way too. And that is what these motions for recusal are primarily based upon, not simply two discrete events.

* In this case, evidence that is barred by the Wisconsin legislature, a fact both acknowledged and affirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court.


William Tyroler said...

I've got a hard copy, and skimmed it, but no more than that. Initial impression, which I fully expect to be confirmed on closer reading: absolutely first-rate effort from a truly first-rate attorney. (Moreover, at least if I recall correctly, Dean's providing pro bono representation.) His approach is a bit different from the other recusal motions, in that he's arguing a disqualifying "personal interest."

It'd be nice if the court posted electronic copies of documents other than briefs, so that important motions such as this one were readily accessible to the public, but no such luck. Mr. Foley provides a tremendous public service in filling in gaps in coverage, especially among the media, whose disinterest in this issue is a story in itself.

illusory tenant said...

You're far too kind, as usual. I too am somewhat amazed by the disinterest. Patrick Marley is staying on top of things, at least. I bet he would like to devote more time to it but he's got a lot of other terrain to negotiate at the Capitol.

I met him at the hearing in Waukesha, in September. The court is tiny, with only a couple of short pews. When I got there only he and another reporter were seated in the corner, working. I figured one of them must be Marley, which one turned out to be, and I introduced myself.

(He reads this blog but demands more Futurism.)

A few minutes later as more visitors were arriving, somebody came in and asked whether I was a reporter. No sir, I told him, just another red blooded, concerned permanent legal resident (I didn't want to endanger my immigration status by lying just to suit a cliché).

So he said, 'Then I'm afraid you're going to have to go and watch the hearing in the lobby. We're trying to keep these seats reserved for the media.'

It seeming not the most opportune moment for a postmodern discussion about what constitutes the media nowadays, instead I told him gravely, "If you really must know, I am Patrick Marley's attorney."

Marley denied this immediately, but I guess it was funny enough that I was allowed to remain in the pew with the working press.