adn.com | Alaska Politics : The defense case: Parts 1 through 4 -- Would you buy a car from Bill Allen?

Alaska Politics

This is the place to talk about Alaska politics -- state, local, national. Public life in the Last Frontier may never have been more interesting than right now -- the broad and still-evolving corruption investigation, a big election, a popular governor, powerful members of Congress under scrutiny, and the usual hardball Alaska politics. Come here for news, tidbits and information, and join the discussion. Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

Contributors

Kyle Hopkins

Kyle Hopkins writes about Anchorage city government and politics. He covered last year's campaign for governor, and has blogged extensively about Alaska politics for the past year. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press. E-mail Kyle at khopkins@adn.com

Sean Cockerham

Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He spent three years based in Juneau for the Daily News before joining the Tacoma News-Tribune two years ago to write about Washington state politics. He went to Iraq twice for the News Tribune, and previously wrote about Alaska government and politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Now he's back in Anchorage. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com

Erika Bolstad

Erika Bolstad covers Alaska issues, including the congressional delegation, from Washington, D.C., for McClatchy Newspapers. Before joining the bureau this summer, she spent seven years as a reporter at the Miami Herald, where she covered politics, government and the state legislature. E-mail Erika at ebolstad@adn.com.

The defense case: Parts 1 through 4 -- Would you buy a car from Bill Allen?

Posted by Alaska_Politics

Posted: October 31, 2007 - 2:18 pm

After the prosecution gave the first part of its closing argument, Kohring’s lawyer, John Henry Browne stood in front of jury.

“What you’re about to do will probably be one of the most important and serious things that you’ve ever done in your life,” Browne told the jurors.

The government’s argument sounds pretty persuasive Browne said. But only if you ignore the burden of proof. “If you ignore the presumption of innocence.”

One of the things buried in this case is that it’s perfectly all right for a legislator to vote I favor of things that his supporters favor.

“Halliburton gives money to the Bush camp and Halliburton expects some attention from the Bush people. That’s all legal. General motors gives money to legislators, and expects legislators to do things,” Browne said.

So do teachers unions and teamsters, he said.

Browne talked about the government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. He pointed out that the feds started out by saying, for example, that Kohring tried to get a pickup truck from Veco. That never went anywhere, he said.

At that, a woman on the jury looked at the prosecutors.

Browne read from a sheet of notes with passages highlighted in pink.

Kohring served for years, Browne said. He was re-elected even after people knew an investigation was in the works, and people knew him as an honest man.

Browne talked about the phone call between Smith and Kohrnig, where Smith tells Kohring “don’t you dare” go crazy over the oil tax legislation.

“But according to Mr. Sullivan, they already owned him,” Browne said.

Browne asked the jury to listen to the secretly recorded FBI tapes very carefully.

“You will hear… for example … that Vic Kohring never asked for any money, ever, from Mr. Smith and Mr. Allen. He asked for a loan.”

Updated 3 p.m.
PART TWO: 'Not guilty means not proven'

No one can characterize Kohring’s conversation with Allen about a loan as a payment to Kohring, Browne told the jury. That’s fallen apart for the prosecutors, he said.

One of the prosecution’s points is that Kohring told Smith he’d lobbied or met with specific legislators.

So where are those legislators as witnesses? Browne asked.

“It is apparent to you, is it not, how much, (how) many resources the government has?” Browne asked the jury.

“Have you ever been in a (situation) where the government is going after you? Because let me tell you, there is absolutely no end to that deep pocket,“ Browne said.

One of the jurors, a man in the back, nodded.

Browne told the jury they saw FBI agents testify in this case from all over the country – Texas, California. You’ve seen the resources they have, he said.

Kohring and Browne are by themselves, he said.

“Do you not think that if Mr. Kohring lobbied legislators for Veco, the government, who has all these resources, would have them here as resources?” Browne said. “To say, ‘Yeah, Vic did come to me and was pushing this and pushing that.’”

Browne told the jurors that this was his only chance to talk to them. The prosecution would get the last word – and that’s because the burden of proof is such a high hurdle.

That’s for a reason, he said.

“I am waving the flag a little bit. … There are 18- and 19-year-old kids dying today in support of these principles.”

Browne took out the first of a few visual aids he’d brought into court: A white placard with black writing on it. He put it on a stand for the jury to see what it said:

“Not guilty means not proven. “

By finding Kohring “not guilty,” the jury wouldn’t necessarily be saying “he’s as pure as the driven snow,” Browne said.

“Not guilty means not proven,” he repeated.

“That these people with all of their resources” … Brown gestured to the prosecutors …”And the resources of the United States of America, have not proven their case.”

Updated 3:35 p.m.
PART THREE: Central casting for a ‘sleazy lobbyist’

“What this case is not about is prejudice about politicians,” Browne told the jury.

There must be more politician jokes than lawyer jokes these days, he said.

This case is not about the legislature’s internal ethics rules and regulations, Browne said.

“This case is not about legitimate contributions and fundraisers.”

“This case is not about assuming that a gift is a bribe … without an agreement to do something illegal."

How did we get here? Browne asked.

It all began with a lobbyist, Frank Prewitt, he said. “He was in trouble with the law, but wouldn’t admit it ...”

Browne took a drink of water.

The government started hearing names of politicians, Browne said. “When the names came out, the FBI started drooling. The names they heard were Ted Stevens. The names they heard were Ben Stevens. The names they heard were Don Young…”

One name was Kohring, he said, talking about how the government made a mistake in Kohring’s case.

Today, it seems it’s common for the government to not admit its mistakes, Browne told the jury.

He said the prosecution didn’t actually know how Kohring voted on PPT before the trial. The prosecution claims Kohring got a payment when in fact he asked for a loan, Browne said.

As for the charge that the job Kohring’s nephew got with Veco amounted to a bribe – that’s ridiculous, Browne said. “Their case is so weak, they turn to that as a basis for a bribe.”

Browne accused the prosecutors of adding new charges because their case was failing – charges such as the complaint about Kohring firing Musser and staying out of Sen. Lyda Green’s race (he called her “Lyla”) at Allen’s request.

Browne said he’s not faulting the government for its corruption investigations, but he looked to draw a clear line between his client and the other politicians.

He talked about Ted Stevens and $400,000 from Veco. (I’ll get to this in the prosecution’s final statements, but they say that number never came up in trial. I'm trying to stick to one side's case at a time.)

Ben Stevens was paid $250,000 in consulting contracts, Browne said. Anderson got $20,000 and a consulting job.

Browne pointed out that he asked Allen if the work on Stevens house was a gift. Allen said it wasn’t.

In contrast, Browne said, the amount of money in Kohring’s case is “less than it would cost you and I to buy a plasma TV set.”

As Browne talked about other public officials, one of prosecutors stood and objected. The judge said something about Browne being “close to the line.”

The defense lawyer returned his focus to Frank Prewitt – the corrections consultant/lobbyist who jurors saw talking to Kohring on a secret tape earlier in the week.

“Mr. Prewitt is central casting for a lobbyist. A sleazy lobbyist, frankly,” Browne told the jury.

He said the government used Prewitt to try and entrap Kohring, and that while Kohring didn't look good eating on camera, he doesn’t hang himself the way the investigators wanted.

The only corroborated evidence of Kohring getting money in the case is the Easter egg money, he said.

Browne said: “If you’re going to believe everything that Mr. Sullivan just said. You have to rely on Bill Allen’s word.”

Updated 4:25 p.m.
PART FOUR: Bill Allen's word

After telling the jury that to believe the prosecutors, they have to believe Bill Allen, Browne brought out another visual aid.

This was an excerpt of jury instructions. Browne said the instructions talk about witnesses. I took his message to the jury to be: Take what a witness has to say with a grain of salt if that witness was a deal that could get them a lighter sentence for cooperating.

Browne told the jury that the fact Allen pleaded guilty means nothing as far as Kohring is concerned, and: “Examine Bill Allen’s testimony with greater caution (than) that of other witnesses.”

Browne referenced all the profanity the jury heard on the tapes. “True character is how you act when nobody is watching. Mr. Allen told you that if he knew he was being taped, he wouldn’t have used all those bad words and he wouldn’t have said all those things.”

Browne said: Allen’s demeanor on the stand was self-serving and “pathetic,” and he seemed to want sympathy for only selling Veco for $400 million. “He has memory problems. He has a brain injury. He obviously drinks too much.”

At one point, Browne called Allen: “blasphemous,” “rude,” arrogant,” “grandoise,” and intoxicated and obsessed with power. Making $1 billion a year apparently wasn’t enough for the Veco chief, he said.

Later in his closing argument, Browne said Allen couldn’t describe the conspiracy he’d pleaded guilty too. Browne, quoted Allen, imitating in a drawl: “I just sign what the laywers put in from of me …"

Browne talked about the possibility of Allen’s children being charged if Allen doesn’t cooperate

“Would you, and I’ll pause for dramatic effect, would you make a critical decision in your life based on Bill Allen’s testimony?” Browne asked.

Would you even buy a car from Bill Allen? he asked.

Toward the end of his remarks, Browne seemed to re-assure the jury that it’s OK for them to find Kohring not guilty.

“We know innocent people are arrested every day. And we know that juries find people not guilty every day.”

“Maybe that will disappoint the prosecutors, and maybe that will disappoint the press,” Browne gestured to gallery, “But you cannot disappoint yourselves.”

He asked the jury to use common sense and think about how many times Kohring said on the tapes that he didn’t want a “freebie.

“Do you hear Ted Stevens saying that? Do you hear Ben Stevens saying that?” he asked.

This drew an objection.

“Contain, Mr. Browne,” said the judge.

Browne talked about the various exhibits, pointing out where Kohring said he wants to keep things legitimate, saying that he’s coming to Allen as a friend.

He told the jury that in this case, the government ran into two 6’6” obstacles – a defendant who wouldn’t roll over and “who believes in this system and who believes you’ll do the right thing,” and a lawyer who believes the government has “sadly failed” to prove their case.

Browne talked about the Easter egg money, saying Allen told him to put the money in the eggs. Browne imitated Allen, slurring his words: “This is what I want you to do.”

Before he finished, Browne took out one last placard and placed it in front of the jury.

“Be your word,” it said.

You promised to hold the government to its standard and its burden of proof, he said.

“You promised us you’d do these things, and I’m asking you to do that. Be your word. Thank you.”

login or register to post comments

16 November 1, 2007 - 2:37am | Citizenview

When does guilt strike a jury?

It is said that the guilt or innocence of a defendant is determined at a very early stage in the trial among jurors. That is to say that first impressions are the last impressions. However, there may be exceptions to this unwritten fact of life and Kohring's case may well fall into that exception.

The defence has definitely reversed or slowed down a freight train by a brilliant presentation and impeachment of the star witness of the prosecution. It is very possible to believe that this is a case of reversed roles. A multi million dollar rat is the one who should be in the defence seat. It is appearing to be a case of false witness.

Kohring is guilty of something but not felonies. The closing arguments by Browne may have brought epiphany within the minds of jurors.

Revised prediction:
Not guilty of any felonies

15 October 31, 2007 - 7:07pm | kellied

I couldn't have kept a stright face.

“What you’re about to do will probably be one of the most important and serious things that you’ve ever done in your life,” Browne told the jurors.

OK, I am hooked on this trial, but when it's over there will be at least two more. Linehan's trial was off the website in a week, just like this will be. I know it's important to Vic-- but is this the most important thing they will do? Even in the top ten? Give birth, buy homes, see a child's dance recital, a hockey tournament, get married, make a decision to get a divorce (Browne knows about that,) decide to study extra hard for a college class and get accepted into a special master's program at Cornell (or obsess over this-- never mind.) Browne must think people have lame lives to think what they decide on a jury is one of the most important and most serious yadda-yadda-yadda. What they decide is one of the most important to Vic. He should be thanking them from the bottom of his heart for taking time out from their lives to be there for his client and really impress how important it is to Vic. Plead about Vic being dedicated to his non-existant wife. His step daughter-- his pet rock!

Browne, I wish I was able to talk to you and I would laugh in your pretentious face. This trial will be over in a matter of days and "the most important thpttttt" will be a distant memory within a week. No matter what the outcome, the jurors will go to their boring lives and have. . . frankly, more exciting, more important and more serious things to consider.

If a juror bursts out laughing at high drama, do they get axed or can they stay? I think I'd still make a solid, unbiased decision, but I think I'd fall over laughing at this.

14 October 31, 2007 - 6:48pm | KatRock_AK

If Vic Kohring didn't want a freebie....

Then what did he do for the money he received?

October 31, 2007 - 7:14pm | gilld

Made Nightly Runs

...to McDonalds for burgers for the boys in 604?

Sat around decorating писанка with Bill and his Russian girlfriend?

Made balloon animals for the kids at the Veco Christmas party?

Cut Rick Smith's grass?

Drafted letters pleading clemency for Tom Anderson?

Designed a board game based upon the "Pipeline Pig?"

Uh, "kissed ass?"

13 October 31, 2007 - 6:33pm | Natalie_0

Video Camera Speaks

Good thing about those video cameras...you can't hide from the facts because they tell the real story. When you see something going down on video camera, you don't have any room for more than one conclusion of what is actually taking place. Kohring did not receive gifts and he knew the money he got from VECO wasn't given to him as gifts which is why he didn't report it as gifts.

12 October 31, 2007 - 5:36pm | doggone

raise your hand

w ho voted this guy in at least 6 times you valley people know your stuff same ones who vote r all the way

11 October 31, 2007 - 4:51pm | AKSteveB

Sorry

I only buy my used cars from Ralph Seekins

October 31, 2007 - 5:12pm | F_Firkle

My ex-wife made that mistake

My ex-wife made that mistake once, but that's yet another story of 'corruption.' Ralph had practice before getting into the legislature... ;^>)

10 October 31, 2007 - 4:42pm | metanoia2k

Browne Is Accomplishing Something I would never have dreamed

...possible just a few days ago.

I am actually feeling sympathy for Bill Allen. The smarmy manipulator Browne is actually ridiculing the loss that Allen (and Veco) suffered because of this criminal investigation and Allen's role in it. Allen could well have sold Veco for 100s of millions more had the Government given Veco immunity, but the govt did not do so. That IS a significant loss, so Allen's testimony should be given great weight because, basically, he has nothing more to lose. Allen has paid his dues, unlike Browne's freeloading client.

As one other commentor said: "Sheesh".

October 31, 2007 - 7:35pm | KatRock_AK

Allen has paid his dues? Really?

This man who bribed legislators into taking actions that allowed the oil companies' to rape Alaska, so that his company would enjoy no bid contracts with them. This guy?

Awww....so, after all these years living like Boss Hogg, Bill Allen has to sell his company for less than he could have had he not been caught...or better yet, leave his corruption founded company to generate ill gotten gains for his kids,and we're supposed to have sympathy for him?

Why?

Because he made a couple million less than he could have...and suffered some embarrassment and humiliation because his true nature was caught on tape?

Okay...I'm sympathetic to the aged and appreciative of entrepeneurs who create jobs for Alaskans...but I can't be sorry for a guy who bribes legislators to take actions that cheat the rest of the state of its rightful due, recklessly ride a motorcycle without a helmet suffer brain damage from his own bravado, and then brag about how he "owns the ass" of some of our legislators because he's willing to give them the cash it takes to ensure his favorable position with the oil companies.

Nope, I can't feel sorry for him.

Bill Allen bought legislators in order to feather his own nest at the expense of the rest us and future generations of Alaskans. Old and infirm or not, the price is harsh but must be paid.

Bill Allen's embarrassment and (potentially) lesser profits from the sale of his business are not enough to atone for the bartering of our state's sovereignty.

October 31, 2007 - 7:40pm | Lysander_Spooner

Excellent points, Kat

You're spot on with all of this.

October 31, 2007 - 7:58pm | gilld

Nicely Put, KR

October 31, 2007 - 9:19pm | truthseeker

Yes, but...............

I gotta disagree with katrock on one issue. Make jobs for Alaskans? Not hardly. Bill Allen got his start from contracts he was given by the oil companies to break the Alaska unions on the north slope. Since then it has been a steady stream of texans and oakie coon asses up on the slope. Just go to the airport and check it out and you will see what I mean. Enough to make you puke. I think he even got busted for having a bunch of illegal aliens working up there at one point.

Yes, he made money, but at what cost?

Only thing we are missing on this thread is stags on here trying to justify all this BS. Must be tough to be so compromised you can't even look yourself in the mirror in the morning.

October 31, 2007 - 8:20pm | KatRock_AK

The question at this point is

Who will be the replacement voice / front for the oil companies?

October 31, 2007 - 8:42pm | Lysander_Spooner

Oily leggies

There are still plenty of industry-friendly folks who seem eager to prioritize corporate bottom lines over what's best for Alaska. There's Green, Huggins, Stedman, Cowdery, McGuire et al in the Senate, and Reps. Samuels, Harris, Chenault, Coghill, Meyer, Ramras, Olsen, Neuman, Johnson et al in the House. I'd say industry is well cared for.

October 31, 2007 - 10:43pm | F_Firkle

The last I heard, Cowdery's

The last I heard, Cowdery's wearing diapers and eating through a tube..

Maguire's somewhat tainted from residual exposure to the spot-light that was previously shining on Thom; how badly, we'll see....

Olsen?? Dunno'.

But yeah, the oilies don't look too endangered at this time; not based on what I've read about the special session thus far..

They've convinced -lots- of persons with their fantasy b.s. that if they have to pay the same revenues (that they're already paying in the majority of the rest of the world), that the sky will fall, fractured and oozing lava, and Jesus Christ himself will fart out the chorus from 'Old Man River'..

Gullibility, coupled with lemming-like behaviors and thoughts, especially in serious matters, oughta' -at least- be a misdemeanor..

October 31, 2007 - 8:53pm | gilld

The One

...who seems to serve the oil industry with little reflection and apparently little conscience is Ralph Samuels. He seems to carry their water (sorry to mix metaphors) without so much a glance over his shoulder. Totally witless.

He's like Vic Kohring, with better teeth. (And a tad smarter; but that's relative, of course.)

October 31, 2007 - 8:45pm | KatRock_AK

Good list Lysander...

I would only add Hawker.

October 31, 2007 - 9:22pm | bob_the_contractor

Who Knew ?

That a former "Special Assistant" to Jerry Ward, who "cuts red tape and gets answers", who's also a former Legislative Aide to Lesil Mcguire now represents House District 28 ?

October 31, 2007 - 10:45pm | truthseeker

Craig Johnson..............

is definitely one of the worst. We need our own red carpet list. Can someone compile one? Except the carpet is going to be one leading out the door of elected officialdom. These guys are really disgusting. Watch them on gavel to gavel. A bunch of really arrogant P**cks.

October 31, 2007 - 8:49pm | Lysander_Spooner

My bad

Most definitely Hawker! Seems a shame to let him slide under just "et al". Thanks for the reminder.

October 31, 2007 - 8:54pm | AK_Lady

Any plans to run for office, Lysander?

Jus wonderin'.

9 October 31, 2007 - 4:31pm | metanoia2k

If The Jurors Buy This Line Of Bullsh*t...

...I will become more cynical than I already am about Alaskans.

The body of John Browne's argument lies molding in the grave of contradiction. First he argues that the government is trying to manipulate the prejudices of the jury against politicians and procedes to manipulate the prejudices of the jury against government. Then he asserts that other politicans are guilty of prostituting their offices for Veco because they got big dollars while Vic, on the other hand, got paid for his favors amounts totally less than a plasma TV.

Is the amount of the bribe--oh, excuse me, the "loan"--really a distinction without a difference? In other words, if Vic would bend over for a hamburger, all that proves is he was a cheap date.

C'mon people...PUH-leeze don't buy this guys line.

8 October 31, 2007 - 4:30pm | tlamb775

Sheesh

...................

7 October 31, 2007 - 4:17pm | Ter_H

A Sleazy Lobbyist?

Not as sleazy as Veco Vic!

6 October 31, 2007 - 4:07pm | alyeska34

asked for a loan?

Then why on any of the tapes don't you hear Vic telling Allen when he could expect to get the "loan" back? Because he never intended to.

And I don't think comparing Veco to Haliburton is going to win any arguement for Vic. And what a touch by Browne to bring up our soldiers dying in Iraq....yeah, that will convince the jury he's innocent or rather "not guilty" cuz he sure as heck ain't innocent!!

5 October 31, 2007 - 4:06pm | AKH

What are Vic's Chances?

What are Vic's Chances? The Feds case has some holes but there is that tape.

My guess is

If the Jury comes back by midafternoon Thurs., vic is guilty on all charges.

If the Jury comes back by Friday evening. Maybe a split verdict- guilty on 1-2 counts not guilty on 2-3.

If it goes over the weekend - then who knows. Maybe time to make a deal.

October 31, 2007 - 4:24pm | FbksObserver

How about later this afternoon

How hard could it be?

October 31, 2007 - 5:17pm | F_Firkle

Hey!! It's All Hallows Eve!!

Hey!! It's All Hallows Eve!! The jurors have likely got kids too, ya' know....

I say that they come back by Friday, with a greater number of cavities, and chewing some serious gooey candy, while speaking through chocolate and caramel nougat, muttering something barely intelligible about, "Guilty, Yer Honor!!"

I'd wager a pizza and two Milk Duds on it!!

4 October 31, 2007 - 3:41pm | jedmustang

Legal contributions vs Illegal bribes

This case is not about the legal contributions given to politicians during campaigns, within the limits and following procedures described by statute. This Kohring case is about illegal gifts and bribes he took from Allen and VECO. Comparing to legal (or perhaps even illegal) contributions by Halliburton, GM, and unions is not relavent.

October 31, 2007 - 5:42pm | black33

Where's Kohring's APOC reports

If the Veco was gifts, why didn't Kohring report them to APOC. The defense is only claiming the $$ he got was a gift because they know any other characterization of it would undermine their case.

If only they could have shown that an experienced legislator like Kohring had duly noted the receipt of the "gifts" in his reports to the state.

These were not campaign contributions either- like Browne impllied when he brought up Halliburton. If Halliburton had been caught passing bags of money to Bush after an election that would be completely different than making legal, reportable contributions to his campaign.

Kohring attempted to get a truck, attempted to get a "loan-" the fact that neither actually happened doesn't mean Kohring did not make attempts to violate the law, and that the attempts themselves were violations.

Either way, he's out of the Legislature, presumably never to return.

October 31, 2007 - 9:11pm | truthseeker

Sorry blackie..........

if he is acquitted, he will run again and I have no doubt the faithful in the valley will elect him again.

It is only required for a lobbyist to report gifts to lobbyists. Thanks to the Bill Allen "I'm not a lobbyist" law passed by the legislature, his gift is not illegal.

Now IRS might be another matter. Wonder if that's why the prosecution wanted to subpoena his IRS records?

Ah so, grasshoppa. Truthseeker may be onto something again.

October 31, 2007 - 3:47pm | PChesbro

Campaign Contributions?

I, for one, contribute to politicians who seem to represent my view and who examine the evidence to make a decision that will benefit the greater good. I do not expect them to do as I say, but to listen with sensitivity to the issues I support and vote according to knowledge and good sense. If this is about payback, we'd better go to a system where every candidate gets a certain amount of public money and forget the contributions of groups and individuals.

3 October 31, 2007 - 3:33pm | adn_20_antegrenkid

Defense wasn't that bad...

Kohring's attorney didn't exactly have a lot to work with when you have his guy caught on camera pocketing the cash... The big brother tactic only has to work on one or two jurors in order to hang it... It will be up to the rest of the jurors to bring them back to reality...

2 October 31, 2007 - 3:05pm | Special_Agent_Roswell

You have to wonder if this

You have to wonder if this guy is pandering to a "Red State" jury when he comes up with these examples.

So do teachers unions and teamsters, he said.

Would he saying anything any different if the trial was in a "blue" state?

The fact is the jury is still out on Bush's transgressions, and most of the American folks (and world) see through that, on top of no longer being whole hearted blind supporters of W. And the teamsters? What a wonderful bunch of non-crooks to use as an example.

October 31, 2007 - 4:34pm | kazoom

Halliburton

I haven't read anything about the prosecutor's closing yet, but I'm hoping he picked up on this ... when Halliburton or GM or the unions give money, it gets reported (well, at least most of it probably does). The problem with the money that Koehring was receiving in the tapes is that it was just pocketed and I seriously doubt that he reported it to either APOC or the IRS.

1 October 31, 2007 - 2:39pm | fishwrapper

Discrediting Allen & Smith

This is the only defense Browne has, but the juror's know it didn't work in the Kott trial and try as he might Browne wont get it to work in this trial.

October 31, 2007 - 3:07pm | mikegalaska

Crazy Like a Fox

I think Browne's defense was brilliant! It gives Vic grounds for appeal based on the fact that his attorney was a nincompoop!

October 31, 2007 - 4:17pm | fishwrapper

Tell it to...

Vic's wallet, since it's now six figures lighter! Oh yea, plus the appeal costs.

October 31, 2007 - 3:25pm | wws

Mike G. - A very bright man!

Mike:

Your analysis was right on - exceptional!

Wev Shea

October 31, 2007 - 4:40pm | cacahuates

I doubt it...

The real Wev Shea would know the standard for reversal due to ineffective counsel.

October 31, 2007 - 4:20pm | fishwrapper

Might work...

if Vic had had a public defender, and not one of the highest profile lawyer's in the PNW.

October 31, 2007 - 3:19pm | FbksObserver

Attorneys Only Look Smart on TV

In real life they are just arrogant. How many people get to charge $200/hr for being dumb and arrogant?

October 31, 2007 - 6:18pm | alaskabushpilot

$200?

Where can I get an attorney that's any good that cheap Today? The very least that I could find was $225, and that was for some real light weight paper work. But I have no idea how much a top notch attorney costs, and one from Seattle I'd love to know what he's getting out of this case. For a guy that's supposed t be broke all the time Vic sure did come in with some big guns into this case. Who's paying for it?

October 31, 2007 - 4:16pm | bob_the_contractor

ummmm......

I dunno.

A Prostitute ?

October 31, 2007 - 5:22pm | F_Firkle

Yeah, but I asked my wife,

Yeah, but I asked my wife, and she says that she doesn't think that Browne's that attractive. ;^>)

October 31, 2007 - 4:22pm | FbksObserver

and the difference would be????

Oh yeah you always get f__ked by an attorney.

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

Alaska Politics

Contributors

Archive

The defense case: Parts 1 through 4 -- Would you buy a car from Bill Allen?