Free Press, Fair Trial…

…and “Imminent Threats”

In just over five pages, counsel for Kathy Wone, brushed back the defendants’ proposed gag order motion

Filed yesterday was the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Enjoin Counsel from Making Extrajudicial Statements. 

Submitted by Covington & Burling’s Ben Razi, Stephen Rodger and Brett Reynolds, with Patrick Regan in tow, they lean on DC Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.6:

“A lawyer engaged in a case being tried to a judge or a jury shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of mass communication and will create a serious and imminent threat of material prejudice to the proceeding. Rule 3.6 (emphases added).”

With the trial still a year off, they maintain that more restrictive measures are unwarranted and that voir dire will be enough to ensure an impartial panel.

They then go on to quote the defense counsels’ own words back at them; in particular, David Schertler’s.  Over the past four years he’s been none too shy when it comes to jawboning the press, Covington argues.

Why should Kathy Wone and her counsel have to remain silent, they ask,”…after more than four years…” of the Defendants “…loudly trumpeting their supposed innocence?”

Don’t believe them?  On page two, Covington pulls selected quotes:

“[David] Schertler, a former homicide chief for the U.S. Attorney in the District, said Ward had nothing to do with Wone’s slaying. Schertler said Ward told police that neither of the other two men was involved, either.” “Schertler also said the slaying was committed by an intruder.” Washington Post, August 16, 2006.

“Kathleen E. Voelker, an attorney for one of the townhouse residents, said the three men have told police ‘unequivocally that none of them were involved’ in the slaying.” Washington Post, August 24, 2006.

“The prosecution’s case is pure fantasy. My client is innocent. There is no basis for these charges . . . .” ABC News, October 20, 2008, remarks by David Schertler.

“‘Our clients are completely innocent,’ says Schertler, former chief of the Homicide Section in the U.S. Attorney’s Office here. ‘What the prosecution has done is cobbled together a variety of circumstantial and forensic evidence that can be interpreted in a completely different way than the prosecution has chosen to interpret it.’” Law.com, November 3, 2008, statement by David Schertler.

Plaintiff’s counsel goes on to say the defense was waging their own communications effort and that, “Defendants’ counsel (never) hesitated to comment on Mrs. Wone’s civil claims when they thought doing so might advance their public relations strategy.”  Cue one of Bernie Grimm’s greatest hits:

“Price’s attorney, Bernard Grimm, called the timing of the lawsuit ‘unseemly.’”  Washington Post, November 26, 2008.

Covington also dings defense counsel’s use of United States v. Libby, andEstate of Atban v. Blackwater, as precedent, in which far less restrictive orders were signed:

“…those orders did not actually enjoin counsel from making extrajudicial statements; they merely cautioned counsel to adhere to court rules and the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Mrs. Wone’s counsel have done so to date and intend to do so going forward.  No more restrictive order is warranted, nor would any more restrictive order be constitutional.”

The First Amendment.  It’s always been one of our faves.

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Enjoin Counsel from Making Extrajudicial Statements.

149 comments for “Free Press, Fair Trial…

  1. Michael
    10/28/2010 at 10:39 AM

    owned!!

  2. denton
    10/28/2010 at 11:43 AM

    Motion DENIED (by me). The Plaintiff needs a “fair trial” as they have not been in the news unless there are filings, briefings, or just plain ordinary legal proceedings, to my knowledge.

    • Bruce
      10/28/2010 at 12:16 PM

      Motion GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

      Plaintiff’s argument that “they do it too!” simply fortifies the need for some type of order on this topic. The “they do it too!” argument rarely gains favor from this judge.

      As plaintiff’s counsel point out in their Response Brief, the “Comments” to the Rule cited by defendants states that the parties’ counsel are allowed to present “their side of the dispute” to the public.

      However, the recent statement to reporters by plaintiff’s counsel [that you don’t raise the 5th Amendment unless you are guilty of something] was not presenting the plaintiff’s “side of the dispute,” but was an untrue statement clearly stated to posit an untrue assumption into the minds of the readers of that statement, including potential jurors.

      It is noted by the Judge that plaintiff’s counsel do not even suggest in their Response Brief that the recent statement by plaintiff’s counsel [which is the foundation of the defense counsels’ current motion] was legitimate, true or not barred by the Rule cited by defense counsel in their Motion. The plaintiff’s counsel’s argument that “time heals all wounds” is not appropriate when untrue statements are involved.

      The defendants’ motion is GRANTED to the extent that all counsel for all parties are barred from making legally or factually untrue statements to the public and/or the press, regarding the evidence or events in this case.

      Violation of this Order will result in sanctions.

      Counsel for the parties are free to express “their side of the dispute,” including their opinions as to how they think the case will conclude, and including “rightfullness” or “innocence” as to their respectful clients. Those are clearly opinions within their advocacy boundaries.

      In all other respects, the pending Motion is DENIED.

      • denton
        10/28/2010 at 12:28 PM

        That’s better! See, Bruce, I can’t write like you but my brain is going there somewhere. I totally agree on both GRANTED, and DENIED. It has a bit of way to “balance” the acts of both parties. Thanks.

        • Bea
          10/28/2010 at 3:32 PM

          Bruce and Denton – it’s okay to date in person.

          • Bruce
            10/28/2010 at 3:44 PM

            Thank you, Bea, for your much needed and appreciated suggestion!

            Would you like to give a try at ruling on the motion to gag?

            Gag away!

            • Bea
              10/28/2010 at 9:08 PM

              I don’t know the judge – my guess is that she’ll deny it but admonish them that she doesn’t want any more shenanigans.

              • denton
                10/28/2010 at 9:14 PM

                Bea,

                I DO NOT mean my brain is going there somewhere the way you have interpreted it.

                What I meant was I was thinking along the line that Bruce described but was not able to form my words as precise and clear.

              • Bruce
                10/29/2010 at 3:38 PM

                Quite possible, Bea.

      • Cara
        10/28/2010 at 8:43 PM

        Knowing that the wise attorneys here and everywhere would disdain our theoreticals about “what we’d do if we were innocent and were in this situation,” and perhaps counsel us to do otherwise, it’s nevertheless hard not to imagine that I’d be shouting my innocence from the mountaintops if I were so.

        Got something to say that we need to hear, defendants? Then, as Cole Porter would say, “Blow, Gabriel, Blow!”

        • Craig
          10/28/2010 at 10:16 PM

          cara: the silence never made sense. and do the attorneys scoff at theoreticals because they dont want to know if their clients are guilty?

          • Cat from Cleveland
            10/28/2010 at 10:30 PM

            If we KNOW that our clients have done what they are accused of, we cannot stand up in court and say they are innocent. So, where it would hinder our ability to represent our clients, we don’t ask.

            • Cara
              10/28/2010 at 10:43 PM

              Understood, Cat, and thanks for doing what you do. I’d call you in a Cleveland minute if I needed representation!

              • Clio
                10/29/2010 at 7:40 AM

                All, “Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” was long a lawyerly compromise before becoming Pentagon policy. Lawyers Bill and Hillary Clinton just spread it around: thanks NOT!

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  10/29/2010 at 10:20 AM

                  I heart the Clintons anyway.

                  DADT WAS a compromise, but look at the alternative at the time. Court marshalls galore, and military sanctioned gay bashing. Sometimes we have to take what we can get until we can get more.

                  Unfortunately, Bush never touched the subject so it’s lingered for years.

                  • Bill 2
                    11/02/2010 at 2:41 PM

                    Prior to DADT, people from the investigative sections of the military would troll gay bars near military bases to seek out possible gays in the military. That’s just one of the horrors that went away with DADT. Although DADT should have been repealed years ago, we shouldn’t forget it was a step forward.

                    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                      11/02/2010 at 2:58 PM

                      Absolute, Bill2. Just as I said in my post above, sometimes you have to take what you can get until you get more.

          • Cara
            10/28/2010 at 10:41 PM

            Craig, I don’t believe they “scoff.” I think that they represent. They do their jobs, and I respect that.

            Knowing that as we all have, I’m with you that the silence still never made sense.

            • denton
              10/28/2010 at 10:53 PM

              Cara and Craig:

              I work for lawyers.

              “Silence is Golden” and we do it all the times to keep things quiet mainly to protect the privilege, sensitive, and confidential matters of the legal profession AND the clients.

              • Bruce
                10/29/2010 at 4:55 PM

                Hi Cara & Craig:

                re: silence

                Exactly what would you do if you were the Swann 3 and you were innocent?

                Let’s see. You have told the police over and over that you are innocent and your housemates are innocent.

                You now have attorneys and they have all told you to not say anything in public (probably), so, let’s see, should I not take my attorneys’ stern advise on this?????

                I guess you could go to DuPont Circle and make large signs, hire clowns, pass out leaflets and scream out constantly that you are innocent. “Innocent, I tell ya…..”

                Course you might get arrested.

                You could take out a full page ad in the Washington Post and explain in detail how you and your friends are innocent (your attorney is bound to love that).

                You could go on WMRM and respond to every attack against your innocence.

                That ought to keep you pretty busy.

                I guess you could legally walk down every DC street and tell everyone you see your name and that you are innocent of the charges against you. “I’m innocent, I tell ya!”

                That ought to keep you pretty busy.

                Exactly what would you do on this issue?

                • carolina
                  10/29/2010 at 6:04 PM

                  I’d quit telling half truths. I would have had the common sense to keep personal porn off my work computer, since that would surely indicate a lack of boundaries and judgment on my part. I would have suggested the police search the alley and all waste bins for blood stained clothes and my digital cameras.

                  Might have suggested they dust the knife block for prints, or asked if there were any prints in the murder room that didn’t belong to someone in the house or a friend. I probably wouldn’t have bothered to ask the 911 op what time it was, nor would I have changed my story.

                  Just, you know, some of that would’ve been good.

                • Craig
                  10/29/2010 at 6:05 PM

                  Bruce – No one has advocated sandwich boards, leafletting or sky writing. Just a single, simple public statement. That absence strikes many as incomprehensible. I know that by nature, attorneys will play a defensive game when it comes to communications, but either you define yourself first or others will.

                  Had the defendants done that, maybe we’d have seen far more trouple boosters among the readership here, and in the courtroom last summer. Or maybe even another site devoted to the case.

                  • Cara
                    10/29/2010 at 6:15 PM

                    Exactly: a supporter’s website at the least. Also, although I’m sure it didn’tdo her any good, Casey Anthony’s parents were on TV or quoted in the newspaper several times per week proclaiming their support and her innocence. If the trouple are abiding by counsel’s adviceto keep mum, where are the statements from supporters? Anyone?

                • Bea
                  11/01/2010 at 9:02 PM

                  Bruce, Joe told Tara Ragone that he wanted to tell the whole story but couldn’t because one of them might get arrested – what’s up with that?

                  Your premise is that they’re innocent – if absolutely innocent and that they know NOTHING other than stated? Big difference. Being complicit even in covering something up is, as you know, a crime.

                  So if they are innocent of MURDER, they tell the truth as to who did the murder and face the consequences (or, more likely, cop a deal to testify). It is the only honorable thing to do – especially when your friend was murdered in your home and you know the wife – and see first hand how much she is grieving.

                  If it was REALLY ninja assassins, then what was it Joe “couldn’t” tell Tara? That for Halloween he’d dressed as a Ninja Turtle and thought it might be confusing?

                  If truly innocent and truly having NO knowledge of what happened that night, I’d take a lie detector (or several) and do hypnotherapy to see if some detail got lodged in my subconscious. I’d put up a reward. I’d personally talk to each neighbor about what they saw.

                  And certainly on the night of the murder when being questioned, I would not be coy then aggressive and convoluted. You know, as Judge Leibovitz and the rest of us observed.

                  These are for starters. . .

      • anoninny
        11/01/2010 at 6:15 PM

        if that is the best Razi can do, we are all in for a(nother) shock. this motion reads like a just-did-it-late-last-night college paper. high on rhetoric, low on substance, even lower on argumentation. if i were kathy, i might think of getting some paid help and not the pro bono kind. better to lose 33 percent than everything…

        • Susan
          11/01/2010 at 9:54 PM

          A’ninn

          I think it’s beautiful when people/groups step forward, and law offices do this regularly, and share their support and services at no cost. In that spirit, maybe you are offering your services to Ms. Wone? That would be beautiful, indeed. And some things are beyond percentages and just priceless, like good hearts, principles, justice. This crime didn’t begin with a lawsuit. And whatever the outcome, I don’t think it really ends with one either, whatever the outcome.

  3. denton
    10/28/2010 at 6:12 PM

    Take the other “is” out.

    • Craig
      10/28/2010 at 11:53 PM

      It’s the new maid; a very thorough duster. She wanted me to remind you that an important filing was written about here today.

      • denton
        10/29/2010 at 2:41 PM

        I didn’t know wmrw has a maid. You must pay him/her very well, Craig.

        • Craig
          10/29/2010 at 2:46 PM

          Denton: This is getting very tedious. Either you stay focused on the topics at hand or you disappear.

          • Craig
            10/31/2010 at 3:12 PM

            Denton – I don’t need permission to reach out to you or any other reader. Read the FAQ. Any complaints are to be addressed offline.

            You are not being singled out but too many of your comments as with the decidedly frivolous ones from other readers get deleted. And that is getting tiresome. Off-topic idle chatter is not welcome.

            The comments section of this site was always a source of pride and as of late, it is devolving into an embarrassment.

            • Doug
              10/31/2010 at 5:37 PM

              We regret having to restate this, but this site – this entire undertaking – is not about any other individual than Robert Wone. Obviously we are in a long slog until next year, but the nature of some of the recent discussions is disheartening.
              As an editorial team, we will say this once: no-one is being singled out but we cannot let petty diversions distract our effort. Comments are not free-for-all: you are either helping to advance the case or you are not.
              The entire community has invested far too much to let this effort become debased.
              This is all we will say, and it is directed to everyone: you are helping the cause, or you are out. Period.
              WMRW editorial team

          • 10/31/2010 at 5:18 PM

            Denton: I fully support Craig and, in fact, have been emailing him offline for weeks, begging him to delete some of the inanities and/or remove your permission to post. Actually, he has been extremely patient with you, more than I would have been. It’s very dispiriting and annoying to check current “comments” and find about 8 or 9, almost in a row, from Denton and find them all random thoughts that most of us keep to ourselves without polluting the blog.

            Now it’s devolved into this wierd paranoia about being Asian, ALL evidence to the contrary. No, it’s posting behavior. Many have commented on your posting behavior, but you don’t seem to have responded (at least, not well). You have, in the past, made some positive contributions so, if you can get sort yourself out (less self absorption, for one), I’m sure you’d be welcome (again). Respectfully.

    • Bruce
      11/01/2010 at 10:18 PM

      Bea:

      Not enough space left after your most recent post to me.

      I don’t understand your post, both from its tone and from what it says, and maybe it is due to its placement there maybe some confusion? I have no idea what it is that I said that bothers you so, or why you are acting on some assumptions about me that are untrue and have no basis in fact.

      I don’t believe I have ever said that I think the Swann 3 are innocent. Please explain that.

      Frankly, I think one or more of the Swann 3 ARE guilty of murder. But I am trying to keep a very small receptacle in my brain open for any possibility, and won’t be sworn to allegiance as to any one theory. Is that a crime? Does that reasonably prompt a post like yours?

      I certainly did not state or suggest in my post “re silence,” that I think they are innocent, or are all telling the truth, or whatever the heck you said.

      Where do you come up with that? I’m truly baffled.

      My point in the “re: silence” posts is that it does not make sense from a legal defense standpoint for them to be speaking out and that I know of no instance where a defendant has done so and it worked out well for them in the end.

      How did you twist that into my premise being they are innocent and have no knowledge?

      You say, in the form of a question: “Your premise is that they’re innocent – if absolutely innocent and that they know NOTHING other than stated?”

      Huh?

      And that’s just in the first 1/2 of your post.

      2 + 2 does not equal 4 here.

      Please help me here so that I can try to intelligently respond.

      Or, a simple “nevermind” will suffice, also, if you feel it is appropriate.

      • Bruce
        11/01/2010 at 11:20 PM

        And Bea. just for clarification:

        You say at the very beginning of your post that:

        “Joe told Tara Ragone that he wanted to tell the whole story but couldn’t because one of them might get arrested – what’s up with that?”

        I am not familiar with that. Could you point us to that evidence or allegation?

        I am familiar with the evidence that states that Joe told Ragone:

        “There’s a big difference between tampering and wiping away some blood, freaking out about a crime scene.”

        But, there also seems to be a “big difference” between what you say Joe said to Ragone and what the evidence suggests in that regard. Do you have any inside knowledge about this?

        • Craig
          11/01/2010 at 11:53 PM

          Bruce: See Catch-22 email to Ragone. Search function may work.

          • Bruce
            11/02/2010 at 12:37 AM

            Thank you, Craig, for that “lead.” It took a bit, but I believe I found it, quoted in an article linked to a post:

            “It is a true Catch-22. The police get to accuse us of not saying all we know, but we are not allowed to fully respond for fear they will retaliate by arresting one of us. Based on what we know of the investigation, it seems they were just so sure from the get go that one of us did it, they never bothered to EVER investigate the possibility of an intruder. Now that their theory that it was one of us has not panned out, they are doing their very best to cover up from the Wones and the public that they never bothered to pursue the intruder theory.”

            If I understand this correctly, this was a year after the murder.

            As I read it, Joe is explaining to Ragone his frustration with the police now getting to say to the public what the police want to say at this time one year after the murder (accusing Joe, Vic and Dyl of not saying all they know), whereas Joe fears that if they respond publicly to what the police are now saying (that Joe et al are not saying all they know), by telling the public “We told the police everything we know!”, that the police might unfairly retaliate by arresting (wrongfully) one of them.

            Am I being ridiculous in my interpretation? Am I missing something?

            Is there a reasonable interpretation of this that Joe is saying, as Bea suggests in her recent post, in this e-mail that “he wanted to tell the whole story but couldn’t because one of them might get arrested.”

            To me, that seems like quite a stretch.

            Is Bea’s interpretation the conventional wisdom on this? Sorry to rehash any previous posts on this Catch 22 e-mail, but I don’t see that e-mail as damning at all.

            Am I not getting the right context?

        • Bruce
          11/02/2010 at 12:41 AM

          Bea, I don’t know what is up with me tonight. I apologize. Can we start over? Could you possibly re-do your post, and I will try to respond intelligently and respectfully.

          • Bea
            11/02/2010 at 2:51 AM

            Let’s just leave it alone, no harm, no foul. I won’t rewrite the whole thing but here’s the short version if you truly are interested in my point of view (don’t care if you agree or not, frankly, so really don’t want another diatribe – really, Bruce, sometimes I wonder if you’re paid by the word):

            I personally think that saying “we’re not allowed to fully respond for fear they will retaliate by arresting it” strongly suggests that the speaker is not telling the police everything he knows.

            If I were innocent of murder and did not know who killed my friend, I would (1) take as many polygraphs as is necessary to get the authorities to look elsewhere (2) get hypnosis to see if I might have ninja info hidden in my subconscious (3) establish a reward with all the money I have and ask everyone to join in (4) talk to all the neighbors to make sure nothing was missed (5) and above all else – KEEP TELLING THE POLICE EVERYTHING I KNOW NO MATTER THE CONSEQUENCES.

            • Bruce
              11/02/2010 at 11:00 AM

              Hi Bea:

              Again, my apologies for both of my posts last night.

              I agree with you that if I were innocent of a charge, I would be very strongly urged to want to do many of the things you suggest, and it would pain me greatly if I felt that I was being muzzled.

              I have never felt that I have been mistreated by police. I have never felt that they have twisted my words. I have never personally been involved in a police investigation that is “bungled,” and seems to me to be blind-sided and untrustworthy.

              So, I can’t say that Joe is correct in his assumptions on this. But it is clear to me, at least, that this is how HE was feeling and what he is expressing in the Catch 22 e-mail to Ragone.

              Wanting to do something, and following my attorneys’ advise in the matter to not do something, could, conceivably create a “Catch 22” for someone, in my opinion.

              If he (violates his attorneys advise — this is an assumption) and responds to the police’s statement that they are not saying all they know, publicly, to rebut the police’s statement to the public, he, apparently felt that the “bungling,” “covering-up” police may just arrest one of them as a reprisal, and to keep them quiet.

              I wonder if the police have ever done that in a similar situation. Just don’t know.

              If, on the other hand, they don’t say anything publicly to rebut the police’s statement that they are not saying everything they know, they will be vilified and/or crucified for not doing so. Sound familiar?

              Catch 22.

              Unfortunately, our criminal system is not without its flaws, particularly since it is so advocacy based.

              In his “Catch 22 e-mail,” I believe that Joe is expressing a fear of that system and expressing a theory (probably not true, but maybe “true” to him), that the police bungled things and are now trying to “cover up” that bungling, and will go to “lengths” to stop criticism of the police in this case.

              He clearly does not trust the police, whether he is guilty or not. I’m not so sure that if we were in his shoes, and we were innocent (big “if”), we wouldn’t feel the same. This is based, I assume, on his personal experiences and personal reactions with the police, which we simply don’t have except for the tapes, transcripts and testimony.

              It may be also based upon what his attorneys have discussed with him (assumption), in an attempt to keep him quiet, and not respond to the police saying that the Swann 3 are not telling all they know.

              Apparently, my interpretation of the Catch 22 e-mail does not comport with your interpretation.

              As best I can tell from reviewing this site, the prosecutor did not raise the Catch 22 e-mail with Ragone on the witness stand in the criminal trial.

              If that is true, it is quite telling, isn’t it?

              While I feel that my interpretation makes sense to me, and is consistent with the rest of the wording of that particular e-mail, I’m not here to say your opinion on the matter is not valid.

              Viva la difference!

              • Bea
                11/02/2010 at 12:05 PM

                You’re sure that’s how Joe was feeling, that the cops had so bungled things that he shouldn’t speak to them? Then that’s the major difference between us. I think Joe is lying to his friends to cover for the fact that Kathy Wone has informed mutual friends that Joe refuses to cooperate with police.

                On what basis is he afraid of the big bad cops? Sure doesn’t look afraid while he’s sparring with them at Anacostia. Why not tell them everything THAT night when he was so confident? Why hold back ANYTHING?

                I don’t know how you could be “sure” that Joe was scared of the cops in his email to Tara, someone you claim to have never met and whose behavior in life is a bit afield of a ‘stand up guy’ – read Judge Leibo’s opinion again for the short version, or go watch the W&M Alumni tape then the Anacostia tapes in sequence – or do nothing and we’ll just once again agree to disagree. FYI I am tired of accepting your apologies. That was the last time I will accept. Next time I will just ignore everything you write assuming that it’s full of venom and insults. Nobody needs that.

  4. Liam
    10/29/2010 at 5:06 AM

    From a layperson’s common sensical point of view, it would seem to me that, in general (not just in this case), there would be a greater need to restrict the plaintiff’s counsel from making extrajudicial statements than the defendant’s counsel.

    The defendant’s counsel is going to say “My client is innocent and the charges are baseless” (see Schertler’s statements above). What else would defendant’s counsel say. The public expects this sort of rhetoric from the defendant’s attorney and probably takes it for granted that every defense attorney proclaims their client’s innocence. I really don’t see any prejudice being created by such statements proclaiming the defendant’s innocence.

    On the other hand, when I hear the plaintiff’s side talking (in print, television, radio), I tend to listen more closely and give those statements more weight because I tend to believe (rightly or wrongly) that most (not all) defendants wouldn’t be on trial if they hadn’t done something. I understand “innocent until proven guilty” is the mindset a juror should have, but I think people have an innate tendency to form at least a general opinion, leaning one way or the other, and they go from there. In other words, I think it’s more difficult for most people to assume innocence of an accused after hearing statements from plaintiff’s attorneys regarding their guilt.

    So it seems to me that extrajudicial statements by the plaintiffs would have the potential for greater prejudicial effect than statements by the defendants.

    • Bruce
      10/29/2010 at 11:01 AM

      Hi Liam:

      Interesting post. I tend to agree with you, but, of course, every case is different. And, again, I am a defense attorney.

      I was fascinated by your line:

      “….because I tend to believe (rightly or wrongly) that most (not all) defendants wouldn’t be on trial if they hadn’t done something.”

      I am not at all critical of your saying that. And I thank you for your honesty, and for allowing me now to “run on and on” about it!

      “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” is a very common perception we all hold, including potential jurors.

      It is very difficult to confront that common perception as a defense attorney. I can’ speak for criminal trials, but as a defense attorney in civil trials, it is a very real problem.

      During voir dire (jury selection) is where I first confront this perception, in every case I’ve tried.

      I come right out and ask the whole venire (group):

      “Because my client is a defendant in this case, and was sued by plaintiff, do these facts alone cause you to think that my client is more likely than not at fault?”

      In my experience, you usually don’t get a “bad” response to that, although it has happened. And it is possible that someone on the venire who really does not want to be on a jury in any case at any time, might take this opportunity to try to get off the jury by challenging me on this point. That, of course, helps me “make hay” of the whole issue in detail with the others!

      When you do get a “bad” response to this question, you very sensitively and conversationally follow up and ask “Why do you think that, if I may ask?” In a non-confrontational way, you examine with that juror (and, of course, all others are listening carefully) exactly why he or she feels that way, and you can do this in a way that expresses that you understand that this may be a common perception, and is not an attack on any beliefs or character or intelligence of this single (or more) juror.

      What you can not do, ever, is “attack” that potential juror for his or her opinions or perceptions expressed during voir dire. I very much try to make voir dire very conversational, non-threatening and non-formal. I try to use, as many attorneys do, the voir dire process to let the jurors know that I am reasonable, they can look to me to be friendly and open with them, all developing a trust that is very important to obtain to best serve your client.

      Depending upon the personality of the attorney doing voir dire (for plaintiff or defendant), this can be a hard or easy job. Insincerity will be early perceived by the jury, and you may never get them back “with you” throughout the case, based upon the jurors initial perceptions of you, the attorney.

      Whether or not anyone in the venire raises an issue on this topic, I then go on to explain that all it takes to file a suit like this is to write-up a short complaint, and file it with the court and pay the appropriate fee (here, where I practice, it is around $250.00 I believe, many places you pay no fee).

      I then explain that the court system by itself does not look at any complaint and decide whether it is a “good” or “bad” claim, and the fact that we are all here at trial in no way means that the court system says “this is a good case against the defendant and the plaintiff should win.”

      After discussing this with the juror or jurors who have dorectly dealt with the topic with me, I then look to the whole venire and ask them: “If anyone feels that my client is “guilty” or more likely than not “guilty,” based upon the fact that they have been sued and are a defendant, please speak up now so that we can politely discuss it.” Otherwise, I explain, my client simply can’t get a fair trial, and he/she/it really deserves and has a right to that. “So, let’s discuss this further if it is an issue with anyone here.”

      I had to laugh when I read in the Plaintiff’s Response Brief regarding the gag order motion, the argument that any bad or incorrect perceptions can be “fixed” in voir dire. Not true. Potential jurors do not necessarily state the “truth” when they are asked about their opinions, and some may have never really thought before about the questions being asked, so don’t want to really talk “off the top of their heads,” without giving it some thought.

      The best you can hope is that the potential jurors really listen to you on this issue.

      And, in the jury room while deciding the case, if a juror expresses anything that could be interpreted as following this misconception about defendants, you can hope that someone else on the jury will say:

      “Well, remember what that handsome dashing defense attorney said: Just because you are sued does not mean you are more likely than not at fault. You just have to pay a fee. We can’t really consider this and be fair, can we?”

      • Craig
        10/29/2010 at 11:50 AM

        Handsome dashing defense attorney: Do you ever use jury consultants? Are they more valuable in criminal than civil trials? How do they bill, hourly or by the pound?

        • denton
          10/29/2010 at 1:27 PM

          I think this question is for (potential) jurors. The lawyers would not use jury consultants. Why would they? Both in criminal/civil jury pool are valuable to the trial and lawyers. A juror gets paid by “one day/one trial (Petit Juror),” or by the entire case that he/she serves. Each day a juror will draw $ from the ATM on 3rd floor after they are “released” from the jury service. All questions will be directed to the court clerk, OR the jury supervisor.

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            10/29/2010 at 1:53 PM

            Denton, a jury consultant is sort of like a behavioral scientist. They observe a body language and listen to potential jurors responses. They help attorneys voir dire the jury pool.

            • AnnaZed
              10/29/2010 at 1:55 PM

              Since he is a lawyer one can presume that he should know that, hummm.

              • denton
                10/29/2010 at 2:11 PM

                If you mean “he” is me, I am not a lawyer but I work for (at least) one. Perhaps, you refer it to Bruce.

            • AnnaZed
              10/29/2010 at 2:05 PM

              ::sigh::

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                10/29/2010 at 2:11 PM

                AnnaZ, I’ll take two of those, please.

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              10/29/2010 at 2:11 PM

              geez why so huffy, denton?

        • Bruce
          10/29/2010 at 4:15 PM

          Craig:

          You do not ask about litigation support companies that do “mock trials,” so I take your question to be limited to using a person (jury consultant)to advise me as to who I want to have as a juror, and who would likely sit in the court room during voir dire, and give suggestions to me as I am making decisions about the jury (and striking or accepting jurors from the venire).

          No, I haven’t.

          There was a very successful plaintiff’s attorney in Chicago once who was famous (samong trial attorneys) for having a cab driver friend of his serve this purpose on all of his trials, and sit in the court room during voir dire and suggest certain people as jurors from the venire to the attorney.

          I am not against using a jury consultant, but it is expensive and a luxury that most clients don’t want to pay for.

          There are a number of people and companies who offer their services to do this, and some are “highly qualified” by education or experience, and many are psychologists, human factors experts, etc. They usually don’t come cheap (except the cab driver).

          If I were to use such a jury consultant, I would not look at degrees, but find out whether they are repeatedly used by firms or attorneys. The “repeatedly” tells me something, or at least hints that someone in the legal field feels they are of great assistance.

          I am a bit of cynic on this topic, I’m afraid, and probably not following conventional legal wisdom, but I find that people are too multi-dimentional and aren’t really subject to snap judgments based on limited information provided.

          I usually create my own list of the “make-up” and attributes of what I consider the perfect juror for my particular client in this particular case before voir dire, considering the claims in the case and the money asked for, and I will pass it by some attorneys at my office for their thoughts.

          This will differ from case to case, and many times is based primarily upon the age and sex of the plaintiff (since I mostly defend cases).

          Also, if the plaintiff is asking for a lot of money in a case and may be relying on sympathy to get it, I will try to formulate in my own mind who would be the type of person who would not willy nilly give away money in the verdict, and who knows the value of a buck.

          It’s a guessing game all around.

          For instance, if you were just to hear the “stats” on me, age, occupation, etc., and ask me a couple bland questions, you would probably think I am someone I am not. A jury consultant also. I like to think that I am more complicated than that, and it doesn’t apply to me exclusively by any means.

          It’s not a science, and I rely mostly on my “gut” feelings I get from seeing and talking with the potential jurors, their body language, etc.

          Do they seem kind of close minded? Don’t usually want that. Do they seem like the kind of people that will very strictly follow the judge’s instructions? I usually like those.

          And so forth.

          Would be interested in how other legal beagles on here have dealt with this issue of jury consultants.

          • Rebecca
            10/29/2010 at 6:04 PM

            I am a banker not a lawyer but I would guess that all industries (funny to call trial work an “industry”, but it is in this sense)we have ways to size up our customer/borrower/client/juror.

            We have a very wise director at the bank who sits on the loan committee that approves large commercial transactions. During these discussions he often asks the same question – what kind of car does the borrower drive? This is a seemingly irrelevant question, but to our director it speaks volumes about the character of the borrower.

            I imagine that similarly quirky indicators are valid in jury selection. I’d be curious if any of the lawyers on the site has his/her own special selection criterion. If not, it might be worthwhile to hang around in the courthouse parking lot and see what the potential jurors are driving.

            • Bruce
              10/29/2010 at 7:52 PM

              Aye Yi Yi.

              Rebecca:

              And if I said I drive an almost 20 year old Nissan with scratches and over 100,000 miles on the ticker, exactly what would that say about my character?

              I drive such because what driving I do is in the city and I don’t care if someone dings it and nobody in their right mind would steal it. It purrs like a kitten and the inside is very nice still. Gives me no problems.

              • Rich
                10/29/2010 at 7:56 PM

                Bruce:

                that is 5,000 miles per year?

                Do you just grocery shop in it?

                I say, keep it unitl it dies.

                • Bruce
                  10/29/2010 at 8:16 PM

                  Bought it “used” in 91. I average about 5,000 or less a year because it is mostly used to go to the grocery store and liquor store every Sunday, I mean church.

                  • Rich
                    10/29/2010 at 8:18 PM

                    Of Course.

                    CHURCH!

              • Rebecca
                10/29/2010 at 9:29 PM

                Bruce,

                With a 20 year old Nissan you’d be a shoe in for at least $1 million, unsecured.

                🙂

        • Bea
          10/29/2010 at 6:32 PM

          I have been involved with only one case in which a jury consultant was used (not my call). I thought it was a lot of smoke and mirrors to give just gut instinct stuff. Probably what is the most helpful of those paid consultants is to (basically) run a profile on what kind of person would most likely be amenable to your client’s position – but that’s still hit-and-miss because not all ‘educated, married women, Democrat’ think alike, for example. I don’t think they are worthwhile.

          What IS worthwhile in my field (overrun with men due to the higher number of men in engineering schools before law school – that is, the patent side of intellectual property – and no use of both left and right sides of the brain) is someone to COMMON SENSE assess the people during voir dire. Many years (decades) ago when I did far more trial work, I thought the questionaire coupled with one’s demeanor and comportment was key.

          Craig, re your compensation question, it’s usually a mix of fixed fees with additional ‘by hour’ for what they consider ‘extras’. We never went so far as to have mock trials or some of the crazy things I’ve heard of. Rarely does a client want to spend that kind of money, especially for results which are speculative at best.

          I should note that this was a civil case. My only criminal experience (decades ago) I didn’t get to do voir dire (settled, bench trials – too junior then for the ‘big ones’).

      • AnnaZed
        10/29/2010 at 1:22 PM

        Ha! Beautifully explained. Bruce you are an artist.

        I’ll just say that out here in the real world I feel perfectly free to make assumptions, cast aspersions and generally form opinions based on whatever it suits my fancy to form them out of.

        In the halls of justice I have been on juries twice in my life (once a foreman before it became the form to call us madame forepersons), and I was actually perfectly able to set aside any assumptions that may have been in play before being sworn in. This was not strictly speaking true of my esteemed former colleagues on the jury, but I am a very serious and intellectual sort of a person.

        Not sure if that has any bearing on the matter at hand, just sayin’.

        Oh, incidentally both cases ~ civil cases in New York City where a lot of money was at stake ~ were settled at the ninth hour after the trials and evidence had been completely presented and everyone had spent weeks at the court.

        I don’t think that will happen with Mrs. Wone though because I don’t think that she’s after money at all but is after information and wants to be able to keep legitimate tabs on these men for the rest of their lives.

      • KiKi
        10/29/2010 at 3:47 PM

        I would agree with everything you have said Bruce. That is very similar to how I conduct VD in criminal trials. I think it is very difficult in criminal trials to weed out bias, because as you stated in civil trials anyone can file a complaint. Whereas, in a criminal trial when we get to trial, usually a judge has determined probable cause exists and often a grand jury has issued an indictment.

        So I think a legitimate assumption by a juror is that the defendant must have done something to be in the hot seat now. I also often have the added problem of “death qualifying” the jury and the defendant’s right not to testify. One strategy I have used is finding that one guy or gal who will admit to assuming the defendant is guilty or holding his refusal to testify against him. And I will ask the pool “Does anyone else agree with Ms. Jones?” Often jurors are more willing to agree with someone than to single themselves out.

        As far as jury consultants, Craig, I have used them in some of my more complicated cases, like the one with the “straight” vic I mentioned the other day. I used them to poor through the jury questionnaires and then to sit through VD with me and help me formulate questions and decide who to strike. I have also asked them for advice on the best way to present my case based on the empaneled jury. Most of the time you pay a retainer and then hourly once the retainer is used (like a lawyer).

        I had 3 cases where I used one. In 2 cases I found them super helpful and in another I found it to be annoying and more hassle than it was worth.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          10/29/2010 at 4:06 PM

          About a year ago I was called for jury duty for the first time (unusual since I’m not a spring chicken). It was a capitol murder case. Unfamiliar with the process, I didn’t realize the nice young man in the suit was actually the defendant. I was excused from sitting on the jury through the voir dire process. When I got home I decided to look up the case. The young man was accused of a very senseless and brutal murder, but somehow I couldn’t equate the image of this tidy young man with the crime he had been accused of.

          Now that I’ve been exposed to the process, I have to wonder if I’ll enter the courtroom with that “legitimate assumption” the next time I’m called for jury duty.

          • Craig
            10/29/2010 at 4:15 PM

            I’ve been called often and have sat on three juries, including a murder 1 in the District. I don’t mind serving, but wonder if I won’t be all that welcome moving forward. Especially if it’s in YouKnowWho’s courtroom.

            • Rich
              10/29/2010 at 5:18 PM

              Craig:

              Generally speaking, I think you are TOAST from here on out in any jury. 🙂

              Just having you answer jury selection questions will amuse the attorney’s and judges.

              See how easy you got out of serving from here on in?

              Just post a blog.

              Brilliant move.

              • Bruce
                10/29/2010 at 5:20 PM

                I think we now have the final answer to why our esteemed editors started this blog.

                Seems like a lot of work to just get out of jury service, though, if you were to ask me, sort of.

          • Bruce
            10/29/2010 at 4:31 PM

            Let me get out my dossier on each of the posters. Yes, get to the C’s…ah, here it is, CDin DC.

            [I write]: “Not a spring chicken.”

            Check. I close the folder.

            Thanks.

            Actually, I don’t do this except what I keep in my head (limited, very limited), but someone confessed to doing this awhile back re ChiLaw. Who was it?

            CDinDC, you will always be a spring chicken to me.

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              10/29/2010 at 5:01 PM

              Cluck…er, peep. 😀

            • 10/29/2010 at 6:19 PM

              It was me. Not exactly as grand as dossiers but just a way to keep folk straight. And so I don’t have to clutter my head, I keep it all “on paper,” digitally. It served as a good reminder of Chilaw’s wonderful contributions and sheer nice-ness over many, many postings by her.

              • Rich
                10/29/2010 at 6:29 PM

                Dear Gloria:

                Since the day you shared you kept a record, I was elated.

                The beauty of this blog is that is a record of what is said.

                The sad part is no one ever reviews the record and just goes off with whatever is in their head or heart at the moment.

                Not always the best strategy.

                I say, stick to your record.

                • denton
                  10/29/2010 at 7:09 PM

                  Rich – that’s the problem with the blog. It’s not a record in its entirety. It’s edited.

                  • Cara
                    10/29/2010 at 7:18 PM

                    That is not the “problem” with a blog. That is the *nature* of a blog.

                  • carolina
                    10/30/2010 at 9:14 AM

                    Only for total idiocy or pointlessness.

              • Bruce
                10/29/2010 at 8:05 PM

                Gloria:

                I think it is a good idea to keep notes to keep track of posters, actually, cause I can’t keep anything in my small sized head (now didn’t this person say they were such and such somewhere on here, no I think it was….???)

                I don’t have the patience or organizational skills to do it.

                I know my post seemed to make fun of it, and I do think I kinda was (in just a minor sense), and kind of glorified and enhanced it into a “dossier” to magnify it.

                It was all used ridiculously to get to the further ridiculous “money shot” main point that…

                CDinDC is a chicken.

                I should probably just shut up now, but…

                No offense meant and I apologize if any was taken.

                • 10/29/2010 at 10:13 PM

                  “Offense” never occurred to me. You’re golden as far as I’m concerned, Bruce. If others want to pursue my little contrivance, I simply keep a running list of names of people who appear to be “in the mix,” and then any comments about the person (“criminal attorney,” “service on DC jury,” “knows neighborhood,” etc. That’s where ChiLaw stood out with her civility, intelligence and evidence based knowledge. And then I list the person’s theories about the case or frequently changing theories (or confusion). It helps (me) and really isn’t daunting once you get it under way.

                  • Rich
                    10/29/2010 at 10:20 PM

                    Boy, I can well iamgine how many theories fall under any one person.

                    I think everyone’s opinion of this case has dramatically and radically shifted over the years.

                    And, it might continue depending on what we learn in the Civil Trial.

                    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                      10/29/2010 at 10:24 PM

                      I stand by my belief that it was Col. Joe in the bathroom with a knife.

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  10/29/2010 at 10:23 PM

                  cluck. 😀

          • Rich
            10/29/2010 at 5:30 PM

            Many defendants look like the boy or girl next store.

            Folks get into trouble for all kinds of reasons.

            Some of those reasons can be legit but still conflict with the law.

            That’s why not all laws make sense.

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              10/29/2010 at 5:52 PM

              “Folks get into trouble for all kinds of reasons.”

              Really?

              • Rich
                10/29/2010 at 6:05 PM

                Really.

                Look at Charlie Sheen? 🙂

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  10/29/2010 at 6:11 PM

                  Rich, you wouldn’t know retorical if it gave you a massage.

                  • Rich
                    10/29/2010 at 6:14 PM

                    I bet Smarty head that you think you are meant to say, “Rhetorical.”

                    And, I do know Massage.

                    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                      10/29/2010 at 6:24 PM

                      I’m know you’re familiar with typos. You just said your last post to boo was loaded with them, Smarty head.

  5. Clio
    10/29/2010 at 7:32 AM

    To all maids of honor (like Dyl, always the bridesmaid, never the bride), one might glean some sense of the limits of the William & Mary scene of the early 1990s from this confession just released:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-osler/repentance-of-an-antigay-_b_772891.html

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      10/29/2010 at 9:48 AM

      Well, now you’ve gone and got me teary,darn it.

      Thanks for posting that Clio.

      • Bruce
        10/29/2010 at 10:48 PM

        Excuse me for barging in, but I would like to respond to the posts re “silence,” and there was no space left to type!

        Cara, Craig & Carolina:

        re: Silence

        All of this demonstrates different opinions on the topic, and mine are no more valid than yours, I agree. This blog is great in providing a forum for spirited debate!

        I am fascinated at this criticism that the Swann 3 should “speak out” more. Just don’t understand it, and can’t follow the logic.

        I think we have a lot of very legitimate avenues of criticism of the Swann 3, for which they are clear and true targets, but I just don’t think it is fair to criticize them for not “speaking out.”

        It would be wonderful for us, on WMRW, if they did. But it is not in their best interest at all, a fact I would bet their attorneys have pounded into them. To “speak out” as you want would simply invite media attention and derision.

        As defendants in a criminal and now civil case for extremely heinous crimes, virtually everyone is against them, and “speaking out” does not lend itself to rational foresight under these circumstances.

        First of all, while I have no personal knowledge, I am almost sure that the Swann 3 were told by their attorneys to make no public statements, and to do nothing that would stir up the “public interest” or media in the case.

        Their attorneys want “total control,” and that includes the media. I wouldn’t be surprised if their attorneys even told them that they would not represent them unless they agreed to make no public statements and let their attorneys control the defense.

        That is surely not something that benefits us on WMRW, anything they say would be cut, spliced and diced by all of us here to our mutual pleasure, but can we really blame anyone from taking their attorneys’ advice and following their best interests?

        Possibly those that are in the criminal law area can better speak to this issue than me, but I just don’t understand the argument to the opposite.

        Second, examples of defendants taking their case to the public almost always end in total devastating disaster. Attorneys know that. They want to, and are paid, to win for their clients or get the best deal possible.

        For example, our previous governor in Illinois, Rod “the Rod” Blagoyovich (not even close to how you spell it, but that is how you pronounce it) decided not to take his attorneys’ advice and did a national campaign to try to “shout out his innocence” to the world on the serious criminal charges against him.

        The “Rod” went on The Apprentice, he spoke on any talk show that would allow him, he talked and talked and talked. And his wife too! Didn’t work out so well. Most people thought he was a total baffoon, did not believe a word of it when he proclaimed his innocence, and thought it likely guilty of the charges against him. He was convicted.

        Cara brings up Casey Anthony. Nothing her parents or relatives said to the press helped her. Not a durn thang. A very good argument could be made that everything said to the public hurt her. Good for us, but not good for the defense.

        Casey Anthony awaits trial, and there may be a couple people left who actually think that she is innocent, but that may be a stretch. At least part of that can be blamed, in my opinion, upon her family, what they did and said publicly.

        I guess that Martha Stewart could also be thrown in the mix. Didn’t help her to proclaim her “innocence,” and a good argument could be made that her statements hurt her. Convicted.

        Third, Craig, I hate to disagree with you, but I don’t believe for a moment that if each of the Swann 3 had taken to the media and made an announcement to the effect that each is innocent, they had nothing to do with this horrible crime, they mourn Robert Wone’s death and feel for Mrs. Wone every day,” that this would change a darn tootin thing….probably just exascerbate the whole situation and set them up for attack and ridicule.

        Craig, you say:

        “Had the defendants done that, maybe we’d have seen far more trouple boosters among the readership here, and in the courtroom last summer.”

        As they say on SNL: “REALLY!”

        Don’t believe it for a nanosecond. But you have every right to promote whatever opinions you have, of course.

        Carolina: Again, with the Swann 3 supposing to tell the professional police investigators what to do. I’m sure the trained police investigators would have eaten that up, and it would have amused them tremendously.

        What ‘half truths” are you referring to in your posts? I thought eveyone here has concluded they were all lies?

        I agree about the porn on the computer, but that does not really apply to our topic, which is what should they “say,” if anything.

        Back to asking the time to the 911 operator? Now you are saying they were wrong for saying something. The point of this series of posts is criticizing them for NOT saying anything. Let’s stay with that.

        Cara: as any of the editors can probably attest, keeping up a blog like this takes a lot of time and attention. Could you really expect the Swann 3 to create and maintain a blog, work on their defenses and prepare and go through trials, and try to find jobs, etc?

        Let’s be realistic.

        A blog that invites anyone to post? I’m sure that would have been pretty. That would have been fabulous. Sure their attorneys would LOVE that!

        Sorry, but “REALLY?”

        Expecting the Swann 3 to do anything after their interviews with the police and clearly being the target of a criminal investigation is just not realistic, in my opinion. Yes, it would be great for us on WMRW, just think how we would eat that meal, but would have been of no benefit, and would very likely harm, the defense.

        I don’t think we should necessarily think that the Swann 3 are stupid, or their attorneys. Or expect them to do something clearly against their interests.

        This is a rational world, to the most extent, and people usually (but not always) act rationally. To expect otherwise, is folly, in my dim opinion.

        So, we differ in our opinions, and that is one of the great thing about this blog. It would be very boring if it was just a one note song. Doubt we can or will change each other’s minds on this one. Which is very ok with me, and hope it is with you too.

        Enjoy the give and take. Peace.

        • Rich
          10/29/2010 at 10:57 PM

          Reslly?

          Too FUUNY.

          You got Seth and Amy’s vote.

        • denton
          10/29/2010 at 10:59 PM

          Great “closing argument,” Bruce. Peace.

        • Susan
          10/29/2010 at 11:24 PM

          Bruce,

          I never heard of C. Anthony before but I just read about her and it seems she did her own self in with her thievery, breaking her bond agreement, etc., etc. Oh. And not reporting that her daughter was missing for a month.

          Blogo(Illinois) wasn’t brought down by talk shows. His big talk shows weren’t Apprentice, etc. They were the ones recorded by the Feds where he is heard on tape as the Gov. of Illinois proposing the sale of a Senate seat. And on and on. Martha too. Insider info. was what brought her down. Not convo. to the press afterwards.

          My guess is, that it would have been helpful if JP said to the cops in his taped interview what he shared with S. Hixson in the Mercedes, etc., etc. Best to come “clean” about whatever during the time you say you are cooperating with police.

          • Cara
            10/30/2010 at 12:32 AM

            Susan, I’m going to say one more thing about that. I commented some time ago that I found Price’s statements to the police about the hose in the shower to not add up. Carolina reminded me that watersports include hose action (which I realized). If Price were in the clear and wanting to help the investigation, why shouldn’t he have said, “Look, guys, the hose up there is something we were using for watersports. Sorry if that makes you cringe, but I wanted you to know that it isn’t evidence.”

            Maybe some will say he couldn’t have received a fair shake by homophobic cops at the time, but you know what? He’s a talker. He could have worked them through it. If it were true.

          • Bruce
            10/30/2010 at 10:34 PM

            Susan:

            You make a good point. It can be very reasonably argued (and you do) that the end result for the examples I used of defendants “speaking out,” is better founded upon the actual criminal charges against them, and their fault.

            I am, however, scratching my head to try to find examples of defendants who have played to the public and “shouted out” their innocence, where it ended in a good result (criminally) for that defendant.

            I’m sure they exist, just can’t think of any.

        • Cara
          10/30/2010 at 12:23 AM

          Bruce, I get it. I do. You get it more than I do, because you’re a defense attorney. Even so, I get it! Regardless of what is the best course legally and from a public relations standpoint, it’s hard for me and maybe some others to understand, emotionally and maybe even rationally, why an innocent person, with supporters, wouldn’t have had some kind of public statement about their innocence. I know that Hatfill (falsely accused anthrax crime) did.

          And when I said website, above, I didn’t mean a blog with public comments, I was thinking more along the lines of something like Amanda Knox’s supporters did. “Free the Swann 3” or something like that.

          I know that Price inferred to a friend that he had more to say but could not, because of whom it might implicate (the Catch-22). I’m sure that if I had a very good team of lawyers (and was a lawyer, myself), I’d stick to the conventional wisdom that I should keep my mouth shut. But it’s nevertheless hard for me to understand the silence from all quarters. If this were me, and I didn’t/couldn’t say anything, I’ll bet my sister wouldn’t be able to keep her mouth shut about my innocence.

          Maybe this isn’t even an opinion, Bruce. It’s an emotion?

          Thanks for your thoughts and experience.

          • Cara
            10/30/2010 at 12:35 AM

            Argh, “implied.”

            • Bruce
              10/30/2010 at 1:38 AM

              Cara:

              I hate the whole implied/inferred thing and the lie/lay conspiracy, and why do we have two words for these things that really mean the same thing?

              I actually heard myself the other night say to someone on the phone, “…and then I laid myself down on the couch…” only cause I could not quickly think of how I say it correctly with “lie.”

              You raise a good point about the “emotional” element, and I, like Mr. Spock, seemed to have completely ignored it.

        • carolina
          10/30/2010 at 9:12 AM

          Okay, but they surely didn’t object to the 3 bitching about how the police screwed up, did they?

          To be honest, I think had Joe started talking, they’d all be in jail.

          • Cara
            10/30/2010 at 9:46 AM

            I think you’re right about that.

        • Bill Orange
          10/30/2010 at 12:23 PM

          Bruce makes a very good LEGAL case for why the defendants shouldn’t talk. Here’s the PRACTICAL case: Joe Price has already tried to explain what happened that night to many of his (now former) friends. Kathy Wone and Tara Ragone are the two that we know the most about, both from testimony at the criminal trial and from the e-mails that were entered into evidence. It seems fairly clear to me that Price was telling his friends that they could ask him anything they wanted to, and he’d answer them as honestly as he could. Joe’s friends are obviously going to be biased in favor of Joe to begin with, and they’re presumably not going to be biased against him by homophobia. Furthermore, many of them are lawyers and/or DC residents and will likely have an opinion on the quality of the DC police. NONE of these people are now willing to publicly defend Joe Price. Tara Ragone has made it clear in public that she doesn’t believe him. Scott Hixson and Sarah Morgan have said in open court that they no longer speak to him. His own brother–the only family member he appears to have a meaningful relationship with–did not come to his trial. Even Lisa Goddard, who appears to have stood by him through all of this, will not defend him in public, and as a CNN employee, she obviously has a platform to do so.

          So from a practical standpoint, if your own friends aren’t believing what you’re saying, why on earth would you try to explain yourself to an unsympathetic public?

          • Bea
            10/30/2010 at 3:07 PM

            Agree. In the beginning, the Lady Doth Protest Too Much, but when friends/acquaintances began questioning (e.g. Tara Ragone) then Joe hid behind the ‘can’t say or we’ll be arrested’ nonsense. Which is it, Joe?

          • Bill 2
            10/30/2010 at 4:55 PM

            Though I try to keep up and to visit here almost every day, somehow I missed reading that Tara Ragone stated that she doesn’t believe Price. Was this a long time ago or just in recent months?

            It’s easy to imagine that some who felt Price was innocent were turned in another direction following Judge Lynn Leibovitz’ decision.

            I’m wondering if Sarah Morgan stopped communicating with Price because she wanted to or was it done by direction of her attorney.

          • Susan
            10/30/2010 at 5:57 PM

            BillO (and/or anyone else) were others of his friends or family at the trial to support him? I thought L. Goddard showed up to the trial (as a friend of both RW and JP I guess?) I think M. Price may have had the potential of being called as a witness or face his own trial? Was JP’s sister in attendance? Dyana Mason? Any other’s of his pals we might not know of?

            It’s too bad technology for retrieving text messages doesn’t exist. There’s prob. a trove of info. that would have been there–and since deleted.

    • Bill Orange
      10/29/2010 at 7:09 PM

      It was improving in the early 90s, but it was still a pretty homophobic place. Professor Greenia was still there and was something of a local legend for the gay community when I got there in 1989. There were a handful of other “trailblazers” among the undergrads and various graduate students when I was there. These individuals were attacked pretty mercilessly by the right-wing elements of the community. Groups like the Campus Crusade for Christ and the College Republicans were VERY outspoken when I was there. In retrospect, I don’t think most of my classmates were especially homophobic, but the shrillness of the vocal minority of homophobes still made it a fairly uncomfortable place to be. College is supposed to be a time when you really grow as a person. I don’t really think I grew at all when I was at W & M. It wasn’t until several years after I left that I really felt like I had a “safe” environment for personal growth.

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        10/29/2010 at 7:17 PM

        I’m sure the late 80’s being the height of the AIDS crisis didn’t help matters any. Fuel for the right-wing fire back then.

      • Cara
        10/30/2010 at 12:41 AM

        Thanks for more insight into W&M, BillO. I know that it’s been some years, and I hope that the campus is a more welcoming place for all students, these days. (I’ve been meaning to ask if you honed your writing skills there, or before, or later…whenever you did, mazel!)

      • Clio
        10/31/2010 at 7:34 PM

        Most interesting, Bill O.

        BTW, the “legendary” Dr. Greenia is pictured seated alongside Mr. Zaborsky in the William & Mary LGBT Alumni Homecoming Weekend Pictures from October 2006, an online montage that has been featured on this weblog before: I do wonder what the good professor thinks of them now.

  6. Rich
    10/29/2010 at 11:23 PM

    “It Looks as Good as it Going to Look.”

  7. Bill 2
    10/30/2010 at 9:31 AM

    There’s a big difference between someone going off topic for a bit and someone who goes off topic, beats it over the head, smashes it flat, and then runs it up a flagpole.

  8. AnnaZed
    10/30/2010 at 11:04 AM

    He gives him a huge house?

    huh?

  9. CDinDC (Boycott BP)
    10/30/2010 at 12:16 PM

    denton says: “Ho Tai Um Ho Sek”

    Will you translate that, denton? No online translator (babelfish, google) is able to translate that into english. I tried traditional chinese and simplified chinese.

    • AnnaZed
      10/30/2010 at 8:12 PM

      How can that be, since I am reading your post right now. Why not just translate this very common Chinese adage for us; or is Rich’s translation correct?

      • AnnaZed
        10/30/2010 at 8:15 PM

        By the way: my Chinese sister-in-law, her mother who was born in China, my friend who spent over a decade in China working for Jardin Matheson and my nephew who speaks Mandarin all profess via email to be mystified by this quote.

    • Nelly
      11/02/2010 at 7:57 PM

      I think it is Cantonese, not Mandarin Chinese. Nevertheless, this is a distraction from what this blog is for. I haven’t been reading as much as I did before, because there’s so much drivel from certain posters.

  10. Rich
    10/30/2010 at 1:02 PM

    In Atlanta ony way to Fla. I interpreted it for you last night. My comment holds up. A very common Chinese adage, Try sensitizing yourself to another culture or people.

    • AnnaZed
      10/30/2010 at 1:13 PM

      Thanks Rich for this translation, though you didn’t identify it previously as such.

      I was just using online translators and Googling. This “very common Chinese adage” appears nowhere in the entire internet in this form (not once) and yeilds this when input into a translator:

      Ho Tai Um Ho Sek

      Trad. Simp. Pinyin English
      嚇聲 吓声 hè shēng ho

      Trad. Simp. Pinyin English
      Sorry, no matching entries were found in the dictionary.

      Is it spelled wrong or something?

      Ergo, I would hardly call CD and I and our inability to find the meaning of this phrase as posted as indicative of a lack of sensitivity to other cultures.

      Are you insensitive when you can not comprehend this?

      Non men che saver, dubbiar m’aggrata.

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        10/30/2010 at 9:24 PM

        Considering my partner is of asian heritage, I could hardly say I’m insensitive to other cultures, especially asian. LOL

    • Bill 2
      10/30/2010 at 5:25 PM

      Since I participate in an Italian forum and a Spanish forum, your convoluted thinking would claim I’m not sensitive to Asians, Africans, and Newfies. Now it would be awfully nice if Florida had a high wall around the perimeter to keep out illegal immigrants and people who make stupid accusations. You’d be on your way back to DC by now.

  11. boofoc
    10/30/2010 at 2:37 PM

    Couldn’t agree more with Bruce’s treatise on the wisdom of the Swann Three’s being quiet. Protestations by the innocent concerning their persecution usually carry considerable weight with the public; not so with the guilty. Loquacity – of which Joe suffers – will do in him and his family, if nothing else does.

    • Susan
      10/30/2010 at 5:47 PM

      Boof,

      It seems like you’re saying silence = guilt. “Protestations by the innocent….not so with the guilty…..” Was Bruce saying that?

  12. Rich
    10/30/2010 at 3:30 PM

    Glad we,re moving onto the Swann Three. Some posters just do not know when to quit. The rest of us just take the easy way out and press, “DELETE,”

    • Clio
      10/31/2010 at 2:06 PM

      “Some posters just do not know when to quit.” Is the pot calling the kettle beige again!

  13. Rich
    10/30/2010 at 6:29 PM

    Bill2: the comment wAs not directed to you. Just the negative and nasty folks, you know, the ones with nothing else to do except dog others,

    • Bill 2
      10/30/2010 at 7:09 PM

      My comment was directed squarely at you, Rich. You chided some people for being insensitive to another culture or people because they couldn’t get a translation to what denton wrote. Like the others, I tried various Google translations and got no satisfaction. Thus, their attempts at the translation matched mine, and probably a few more people, too. No matter where your ridiculous accusation may have been aimed, it was nasty and negative and it reached beyond your intended target. Maybe it’s time for you to try sensitizing yourself to other people on this blog.

  14. Rich
    10/30/2010 at 7:32 PM

    As I join a crowd at a Wilton Manors Halloween block party with Parade, I will ponder it, Maybe, I’ll see Dyl dressed as a Murderer and can query j for an opinion, As for Denton’s Chinese term of art, I will translate later, as I loathe smart phones. Spent a lot of time in China, so he was quite understandable.

    • Rich
      10/31/2010 at 2:31 AM

      Am I certain? Almost. Like, Very certain. Maybe.

      I anticipated on this very blog weeks ago, there was always the chance I could run into Dylan.

      17th Street High Heel Race. You cannot begin to compete with Wilton Manors.

      Wicked Weekend at the Shoppes of Wilton Manors. Fantasea Island.

      Exceptional food, cocktails, outdoor open bars, hours of dancing, fun and high end entertainment. Dame Edna. Michael Jackson. Madonna. Porche (straight from Wanda Sykes). NYC and LA artists. Incredible.

      And, then there was the two hour costume contest. The most elaborate creative complicated costumes you ever seen. Way more sophisticated than Dcs run of the mill drag queen. These people put days into their costumes. Probably because there were four contests over two days that we know about and the prizes were thousands of dollars.

      Back to Dyl. Holding court outside in Georges Alibi Bar with five of friends of which two were ASIAN. (Not in costume). Go figure. We stood inches from him staring him down. We were uncertain. The only complication was the hair. It was less blonde than his photo. Maybe, the photo was touched up or he dyed it at one time. Granted, it was dark outside, but, the hair seemed less blonde. Standing right in front of him, we went to the IPhone and pulled up the posting with the ad from a day or so ago. He saw what we were doing and appeared mildly concerned but said and did nothing. We freaked that he figured us out, so, we moved away. He partied hard and seemed to be having a wonderful time. He was leading his crowd. Not passive at all.

      Over time, we always see, Doubles. People who look just like other people we know. Unfortunately, In Ft. Lauderdale, dozens of boys have that same Dylan, Beach Boy, look, so, it could have been someone else. But, I really do not think so.

      So, Dyl, if youre reading this posting, Yes, I was the one wearing the T-Shirt that said, Its Not Easy Being a Princess. Im sure it didnt help when Dame Edna (we met her out of drag in Ptown last July as she was preparing her show at the Pilgrim House) asked me where I was from and I said, Washington, Dc. We were uncertain as to why you then immediately left the bar. 🙂

      Maybe, more to follow. Who knows. And, the illegals seem quite happy here, Bill 2.

      As for Dentons Chinese the other night, the matter seems to be unnecessarily complicated. Assuming, I can even remember what this Non-Matter was about, Denton basically said, Robert Wone would have viewed the matter differently than Kathy WONE. Of Course, at the moment, I do not even remember what the matter was about. However, his Chinese meant to say, It looks good, but, not as good as it should look. Meaning, nice window dressing, but, there is nothing there. Looks good on the outside, but, not good on the inside. Which is why I said, It looks as good as its going to look. Thats it. No mystery. No bastardization of the Chinese language. My hunch, is that Dentons Chinese blows mine away and he is far more able to explain the translation and definition of his comments. Provided, he wants to.

      Thats it. Time to move back to the Swann 3, AGAIN.

      Nite, nite.

      • Clio
        10/31/2010 at 1:50 PM

        Thanks, Rich, for providing always too much information. I must confess that I felt a twinge of sympathy for the diplomat turned chef turned children’s book writer turned masseur, if this Penthouse Letters Lite fantasy may be even the slightest bit true. Who would want a fattie in a goatee and Princess shirt coming up to them with phone in hand!

        Of course, that twinge of sympathy went away quickly. Why is it not surprising, though, to find Dyl possibly drowning his sorrows at a bar called Alibi — I wonder if Mr. Ward found his own Alibi there in Wilton Manors! Go figure!

        As for denton, he may be a plant from Aunt Marcia, whose husband may have worked for governmental intelligence agencies spreading disinformation globally. Your dual “comedy” routine with little d has not stopped the little blog that could, however. But, it may have decreased the number of erudite and informed readers that the blog has always attracted. Only Bea and Bruce can get them back, I am afraid!

  15. boofoc
    10/30/2010 at 8:36 PM

    Wasn’t trying to characterize Bruce’s message, Susan, only to compliment him on it. My thought, even if inartfully expressed, is that the guilty are more likely to have their deeds exposed if they seek to publish them. Example: Joe’s mouth will likely due him in. I suspect that he has already “confessed” to one or more confidants, who may or may not be worthy of his confidence.

  16. boofoc
    10/30/2010 at 8:46 PM

    Craig: I’m really mystified by your 10/28 posting above that “an important filing was written about here today.” Please clarify. Thanks,

  17. boofoc
    10/30/2010 at 8:50 PM

    Craig: Your 10/28 posting above wound up below; but you know what i mean.

    • Susan
      10/30/2010 at 9:17 PM

      Thanks for earlier reply, B.

      Re your question here, I reckon he means: “Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Enjoin Counsel from Making Extrajudicial Statements.”

  18. boofoc
    10/30/2010 at 9:27 PM

    Susan: Thanks; was hoping it was the Plaintiff’s reply to Motion to Dismiss (Statute of Limitations), which I am awaiting with baited breath.

  19. boofoc
    10/31/2010 at 1:08 PM

    Rich; All this celebration in Wilton Manors ended at 2:31 am Sunday? Been there (Alibi bar, etc., though not on Hallowe’en eve.) I notice you didn’t take CD’s advice (given to me about my stalking) concerning getting too, too close to “unindicted whatevers.” ‘Course he specifically said the advice was for me (“didn’t give a shit about you”). No offense, CD; respect your advice and your concern. But, I did have kinda shivers reading your description of your near-encounter with Dyl (or his look- alike).
    You’ll be wearing the “Pricess” t-shirt tomorrow with your goatee?

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      10/31/2010 at 1:16 PM

      Hi boo….I did later say “stalking” was a bit harsh. Sorry about that.

      • AnnaZed
        10/31/2010 at 1:18 PM

        Really (?), I missed the part where you mitigated your opinion on stalking. Are we pro-stalking now? I’m pretty sure that I’m not.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          10/31/2010 at 1:41 PM

          Give me break, AZ. Why bust my chops? There are better targets.

          I get it from a good source (Craig) that boo is a good guy. Stalking may have been too harsh a word given that boo isn’t a wack job. That doesn’t mean I condone contact/close contact/observing from afar/stalking/staking out/or anything else anyone wants to call it.

          I find it unwise for many reasons.

          • AnnaZed
            10/31/2010 at 1:49 PM

            Sorry CD, my post didn’t express what I wanted to express ~ that I actually missed the conversation with boo altogether so didn’t know what you were referring to.

            Then my mind leapt off to the overall topic of stalking (or sort-stalking, or semi-stalking, or just happening to be where they might be) these defendants which I am growing ambivalent about in spite of my prior vehemence on the subject. Which is to say that I found the account of the maybe Dylan at the party sort or interesting and not creepy. So, now I’m confused.

            In any case, rereading my post I realize that is says nothing even remotely like this, so apologies!

            • AnnaZed
              10/31/2010 at 1:52 PM

              Make that “sort-of-stalking” (my own invention).

              Where is the line?

              One wonders.

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              10/31/2010 at 2:09 PM

              s’okay, AZ. Thanks for explaining. 😀

  20. Rich
    10/31/2010 at 1:30 PM

    Nope, it ended at 4am They party hard here. I wad up at 8, so I was done. Today,s T Shirt is , “Homo Depot, with Logo.”

  21. Rich
    10/31/2010 at 7:24 PM

    bRAVO!

  22. boofoc
    10/31/2010 at 8:36 PM

    And tomorrow’s – with goatee?

  23. Susan
    11/02/2010 at 8:22 PM

    Re silences, speaking out, etc., in today’s WaPo coverage of the Levy trial, former congressperson Condit still refuses to admit to the extent of his relationship with C. Levy. I believe her parents, law enforcement, etc. (myself as well), believe that if he had cooperated with police from the early days of her disappearance and the investigation nine years ago, then police could have ruled him out sooner and moved on.

    It is really galling of him to still not cooperate and to be defiant about it to boot. It seems he has a book forthcoming so it seems self-serving once again. Maybe he comes clean in the book.

    Here’s the most hilarious/outrageous part of his testimony. He stated that he thought he and Levy were “entitled to privacy and that the country had lost its sense of ‘common decency.'” Condit, a married man, had an affair with an intern in his office and the country lost its sense of decency? Maybe he left out “and I” as in “the country and I lost our sense of decency.”

    Anyhow, at least in this case, cooperating with police from the get go might have deflected attention from him and focused attention on the most likely suspect and the likely murderer: Guandique.

    • Susan
      11/02/2010 at 8:33 PM

      I left out something important:

      Condit, a married man, who had an affair with an intern in his office–an intern, a young woman who had disappeared and whose decomposed remains were discovered in a park a few miles from where he lived, and her family and the public wanted answers and he did not cooperate– and the country lost its sense of decency? Maybe he left out “and I” as in “the country and I lost our sense of decency.”

      • Bea
        11/02/2010 at 11:06 PM

        Well said, Susan. Condit certainly did not help his former-lover’s disappearance investigation. Wait – perhaps Condit was concerned that if he told the whole truth that he could be arrested for SOMETHING. Alas, poor Chandra was not murdered in Condit’s home so Gar was only worried about his wife and his constituent’s feelings about his ‘doing’ the young intern. But we know Joe wasn’t hiding from anyone, including his husband, the many he was ‘doing’ and had no constituents. So it wasn’t sex he was hiding that night – so what could it have been (presuming for the moment that he was not the killer) that might have gotten him arrested had he spoken about?

        • AnnaZed
          11/02/2010 at 11:25 PM

          I’m not sure that I am following your logic completely here my dear Bea.

          If one suspects (as I do) that Joe or Dylan, or both of them acting in concert, sexually assaulted Robert; then the murder itself is in fact an extension of an act of sex that Joe likely thought must concealed at all costs.

          • Bea
            11/03/2010 at 8:20 AM

            Sorry – it was an extension of previous sparring with Bruce in which his position was that “WHAT IF the defendants were INNOCENT – what more could they do?” I was making an analogy (badly) to Condit’s claim of knowing nothing that could have helped the police. My reference was more than a trifle obtuse since I’d argued that if they were completely innocent they could have told the cops everything they knew, and Joe’s claim to Tara Ragone that he feared that if they told the cops everything that they’d risk being arrested would not make sense.

        • Bruce
          11/03/2010 at 1:13 PM

          Bea:

          Please feel free to ignore this post.

          The last part of your above post, while not specifically referring to it, suggests your opinion regarding the “Catch 22 e-mail,” but is implied as a fact iin your post, where you state:

          “–so what could it have been (presuming for the moment that he was not the killer) that might have gotten him arrested had he spoken about?”

          This all has to do with your interpretation of the “Catch 22 e-mail,” which I don’t personally subscribe to, as well as possibly others.

          If one goes to the article “Catch 22 @ 1509” dated 6/7/10 (by Craig), and the posts to it, you will see that poster Hoya Loya, at least at that time, agreed with my interpretation of the “Catch 22 e-mail”(or I now agree with his, whichever is grammatically correct). I have no idea how Hoya Loya now feels about that e-mail, but that is not particularly relevant to why I am doing this post.

          Hoya Loya says:

          “Hoya Loya on 06/07/2010 at 11:11 AM

          “Now I get why the “Catch-22″ email was not used by the prosecution. In context, Joe is clearly saying he can’t tell all he knows “about the investigation” — in other words, his criticisms of the alleged failure to investigate the intruder theory — in fear that they’ll be arrested in retaliation for speaking ill of the police. Either Jaffe or his editors left out the first paragraph that gives the context — very misleading…..”

          Hoya Loya then says:

          “Hoya Loya on 06/07/2010 at 4:02 PM”

          “The Catch-22 is essentially “the police get to talk trash about us but if we publicly trash their investigation in self-defense they’ll arrest us out of spite.”

          “All we know” implies that Joe & co. know about mistakes and missteps in the investigation that the police are keeping from the Wones.
          That’s how I parse it and my guess is the prosecution did the same, since they didn’t go there during Tara’s direct.”

          Hoya Loya then posted:

          “Hoya Loya on 06/07/2010 at 11:55 PM”

          “I’m not opining on the credibility of what Joe is saying in the email, just analyzing what I think he was trying to express to Tara and noting that in the context of the entire email, the “Catch-22″ statement reads differently than when the opening section is omitted as it was in Jaffe’s piece (where it sounded more like “they’ll arrest us if we talk”). It’s just my opinion and everyone is free to interpret differently.”

          Then, poster Josh states [in reference to the “Catch 22 e-mail”), in part:

          “Josh on 06/08/2010 at 12:54 AM”

          “Loya, it’s not an admission. Its a pathological lie…….”

          Of interest, Bea responds and says:

          “Bea on 06/08/2010 at 1:18 AM”

          “Josh, I tend to agree that this entire email exchange (like many other things Joe communicates) may be pathological lies. But I agree with Hoya’s assessment that the preceding paragraph to the ‘Catch-22′ lingo makes it far less damning than was reported in the Washingtonian. And my guess is that that’s why the prosecution didn’t focus on it.”

          Everyone has the right to change their opinions, and I do it frequently. But as of 5 months ago, you seem to give at least some validity to Hoya Loya’s interpretation and opinion of the “Catch 22 e-mail”, which does not comport with what you have been saying over the past couple days in your posts on WMRW. It’s fine to change one’s opinion, but my point is it does not promote the interests of WMRW to post opinions as facts.

          Someone reading your posts over the past couple days on this particular e-mail could read your opinion of it as a fact. That’s not right.

          Your opinion now seems to be in full accordance with how the Washingtonian reported and opined, with that article leaving out the context of the entire e-mail, expressly the preceding paragraph to the “Catch 22 lingo.”

          Your opinion of the e-mail now seems to comport with what Hoya Loya described above as [The Washingtonian article: “where it sounded more like “they’ll arrest us if we talk”.]

          I’m not criticizing anyone for having opinions or for changing opinions. Not saying anyone should not post anything…..post away!

          My point, and I have tried to be consistent on it, is that if I feel that someone is stating opinions or speculation as a fact or implied fact in a post, I will try to point it out.

          Sorry I am hung up on this. But I do feel this maintains a certain integrity to the blog, such that I want to be a part of it.

          • AnnaZed
            11/03/2010 at 1:27 PM

            ::jesus::

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            11/03/2010 at 2:38 PM

            Serious business, this bloggin’ be.

          • Bea
            11/03/2010 at 5:14 PM

            Oh Lordy, Bruce. I said the Washingtonian was misleading. Not the same thing.

            And back to the question of whether you get paid by the word. Think about editing for brevity once in a while.

          • Clio
            11/03/2010 at 10:10 PM

            Thanks as always, Bruce.

            In your opinion, though, are Joe and company still in a Catch-22 situation, and, if you were in Mr. Price’s pumps, would you have used the term “Catch-22” in this context?

Comments are closed.