Word: smaltz
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1990-1999
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...questioning of his star witness was already going poorly when independent counsel Donald Smaltz dumped a glass of water on the computer equipment. As Smaltz tried to make light of the situation, the liquid seeped into the circuitry, shorting out the only high-tech courtroom in Washington's federal courthouse and forcing a recess in the trial of former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy...
Last week the jury did a more deliberate version of the same thing, and it was Smaltz who got zapped. After an exhausting seven-week, 70-witness trial, the jury took just nine hours to short-circuit his case against Espy, rejecting all 30 remaining counts of a kitchen-sink indictment. The verdict was not just a repudiation of Smaltz's four-year investigation into gifts Espy received from people his department regulates. It could also be read as a repudiation of the very statute that made Smaltz's wild prosecutorial ride possible. And when that independent-counsel statute comes...
What happens when you throw a kitchen sink indictment at a high-profile defendant represented by some of the nation's best lawyerly talent? The prosecution can go down the drain -- spectacularly. That's exactly what occurred Wednesday as Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz lost his corruption case against Former Clinton Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. After deliberating for nine hours over two days, a jury acquitted Espy on all 30 counts...
...Smaltz threw the book at Espy," says TIME Washington Correspondent Vivica Novak. "He should have focused his case instead." The trial went on for two months and involved a parade of 70 witnesses. Espy's acquittal is likely to have further political ramifications: Smaltz's four-year inquiry ran up a $17 million bill. Tack that on to the $40 million spent by Kenneth Starr to pursue Bill Clinton and the "Smaltz investigation is likely to become one more factor that will lead to the demise of the Independent Counsel statute when it expires next year," says Novak...
...prove his charges, Smaltz does not need to show that Espy returned favors for gifts he received. But a jury in the District of Columbia, a city known for its skepticism toward government prosecutors, may wonder how much the public good was compromised. Says a Washington lawyer who has gone up against Smaltz: "Espy may have been foolish, stupid, negligent, even reckless. But to indict him for being good-time Charlie and not be able to show a quid pro quo" will hurt Smaltz's case. Smaltz did persuade a court to impose a $1.5 million fine on Sun-Diamond...