Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[MarkvW]

Just for the record, I'm not trying to imagine how often GJ perjury cases are pursued.

As I understand it, the 801 (d)(1)(A) rule was added in reaction to Watergate. In which case, I hope it is applied as frequently as possible.

Dave.

ER 801(d)(1)(A) (hearsay exclusions) has been around for a long time, whether under the evidence rules or under the common law of evidence that preceded them. This article ought to demonstrate how old the rule is: http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2010/Stonefield.pdf

The rule isn't a reaction to Watergate. It's a recognition that if the witness has been cross-examined under oath before, and if he's on the stand now, available for cross-examination, then it's fair to put his prior sworn statement into evidence.

That rule is employed all the time, in all kind of cases.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Again, this is a lay person's view, but the secrecy of a Grand Jury is sacrosanct.

Thus, your rules of evidence don't hold.

This time borrowing from Florid, rather than Connecticut:

The United States Supreme Court has enumerated the policies underlying grand jury secrecy:
1. The fear that witnesses will not come forward voluntarily if their identity is not protected;
2. The fear that witnesses will be less likely to give full and frank testimony if their identity is known so that they become subject to retribution or inducements;
3. The risk that the indicted will flee if indictments are made public prior to arrest;
4. The danger that a potential defendant might influence the votes of grand jurors; and
5. The protection of the reputation of an individual who is accused but not indicted by the grand jury

Now, trying to patch this all together and tie back to rules of evidence, Rule 801 (d)(1)(A) was added by Congress such that GJ testimony be subject to the penalty of perjury.

But, based upon further Google research, this rule does not appear to supersede the essential Secrecy of GJ proceedings and allow the unsealing of GJ testimony for use in other proceedings.

Dave.

Thanks Dave, but like a lot of law, courts have to constantly balance conflicting rights. (This is why the judicial system is often symbolically portrayed as the proverbial scales of justice).

On the one hand the right to grand jury secrecy and on the other hand the right of a lawyer in a subsequent case to cross examine a witness in the second case (the qui tam case) on a prior sworn statement made by the same witness on the same subject matter, in the grand jury case.

As a trial lawyer for 35 years (In Canada and we do not have grand juries in Canada), my view is that the secrecy of the deliberations of the grand jury can be kept secret, while at the same time accommodating the right of cross examination a witness in the qui tam trial who gave sworn testimony before the grand jury on the same subject matter.

Based on my observations and reading, it appears to me what US law (state or federal) tries to keep secret about grand juries is not so much the testimony of the witnesses, but rather the deliberations of the jurors composing the grand jury. This is to protect those jurors from harassment, influence or retribution for the decisions they make about criminal cases.

Releasing the identity of grand jury witnesses would not be a factor in this case, because most of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury in the Armstrong case about doping at USPS, have already publicly volunteered they testified (e.g. Hamilton, Hincapie, Barry, Leipheimer have all admitted they gave evidence in the grand jury proceedings. These "common" witnesses have in effect waived their right to keep their identities secret)

In the Lance Armstrong grand jury, in Los Angeles federal court, there were no jury deliberations because the grand jury was shut down by the Department of Justice. Thus there is less reason to keep the testimony of the witnesses secret, especially those who already volunteered they testified. On the other hand it is still possible to keep the identity of the jurors secret.

It appears there are mechanisms to either subpoena the grand jury testimony or get a court order releasing it to such a lawyer who wants to use the transcript of the GJ testimony to cross examine the same witness at the qui tam trial.

But because my trial lawyer experience is in a non grand jury system, in a previous post I asked for input from any American lawyer who may know the answer. To date no American lawyer has come forward to assist us in this discussion.

However thank you for the information you have passed on because you have clearly nailed down the issues creating the problem. But I would suggest that Google will not provide the answers. I suspect there is case law that more specifically deals with the problem that to date neither you or I have found or read.

Once again perhaps some American lawyer who reads the Clinic can help (Chewie would but he is studying for the CA bar exams).

 

[oboingo]

Thanks Dave, but like a lot of law, courts have to constantly balance conflicting rights. (This is why the judicial system is often symbolically portrayed as the proverbial scales of justice).

On the one hand the right to grand jury secrecy and on the other hand the right of a lawyer in a subsequent case to cross examine a witness in the second case (the qui tam case) on a prior sworn statement made by the same witness on the same subject matter, in the grand jury case.

As a trial lawyer for 35 years (In Canada and we do not have grand juries in Canada), my view is that the secrecy of the deliberations of the grand jury can be kept secret, while at the same time accommodating the right of cross examination a witness in the qui tam trial who gave sworn testimony before the grand jury on the same subject matter.

Based on my observations and reading, it appears to me what US law (state or federal) tries to keep secret about grand juries is not so much the testimony of the witnesses, but rather the deliberations of the jurors composing the grand jury. This is to protect those jurors from harassment, influence or retribution for the decisions they make about criminal cases.

Releasing the identity of grand jury witnesses would not be a factor in this case, because most of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury in the Armstrong case about doping at USPS, have already publicly volunteered they testified (e.g. Hamilton, Hincapie, Barry, Leipheimer have all admitted they gave evidence in the grand jury proceedings. These "common" witnesses have in effect waived their right to keep their identities secret)

In the Lance Armstrong grand jury, in Los Angeles federal court, there were no jury deliberations because the grand jury was shut down by the Department of Justice. Thus there is less reason to keep the testimony of the witnesses secret, especially those who already volunteered they testified. On the other hand it is still possible to keep the identity of the jurors secret.

It appears there are mechanisms to either subpoena the grand jury testimony or get a court order releasing it to such a lawyer who wants to use the transcript of the GJ testimony to cross examine the same witness at the qui tam trial.

But because my trial lawyer experience is in a non grand jury system, in a previous post I asked for input from any American lawyer who may know the answer. To date no American lawyer has come forward to assist us in this discussion.

However thank you for the information you have passed on because you have clearly nailed down the issues creating the problem. But I would suggest that Google will not provide the answers. I suspect there is case law that more specifically deals with the problem that to date neither you or I have found or read.

Once again perhaps some American lawyer who reads the Clinic can help (Chewie would but he is studying for the CA bar exams).

The vortex discussion of the last 3-4 pages has been a total distraction and rathole.

As far as I'm aware there are only two cases of significance that matter at this point: SCA and qui tam.

Neither one require unsealing of prior GJ transcripts in order for the plaintiffs to prevail. At this point I doubt there's still anyone stupid enough to "support (lie, cough cough)" Armstrong by testifying under oath in a court of law. The plaintiffs can just call prior witnesses (i.e. those who testified against Armstrong) in the GJ case to "reiterate" their prior testimony. Same for the witnesses in the "Reasoned Decision."

Armstrong, Weasel etc. can plead the fifth, but that's pretty much all they can do at this point.

In case it's not clear, I'm in (perhaps violent) agreement with RobbieCanuck.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

The vortex discussion of the last 3-4 pages has been a total distraction and rathole.

Neither one require unsealing of prior GJ transcripts in order for the plaintiffs to prevail. At this point I doubt there's still anyone stupid enough to "support (lie, cough cough)" Armstrong by testifying under oath in a court of law. The plaintiffs can just call prior witnesses (i.e. those who testified against Armstrong) in the GJ case to "reiterate" their prior testimony. Same for the witnesses in the "Reasoned Decision.".

You forget there are two sides to every story. Sure the Plaintiffs lawyer can call the GJ witnesses or the Reasoned Decision witnesses and both you and I would expect them to say the same thing under oath in the qui tam case. And based on what we know these witnesses said in their affidavits for USADA one would expect their evidence to be the same. But we don't know it is the same as what they testified to in the GJ case without their transcripts.

After a witness testifies in examination in chief, the Defence lawyers get to cross examine the Relator's witnesses. And it is a fundamental rule of cross examination that a lawyer can cross examine a witness on their prior sworn testimony about the same subject matter. The only way the Defence lawyer (and the jurors) knows whether that testimony is consistent with the testimony in the qui tam case is if he has a copy of the transcript of the GJ testimony.

While you may think this discussion is a distraction and a rathole, this is pretty fundamental stuff that can have a real bearing on the outcome of an issue in the case.

 

[oboingo]

You forget there are two sides to every story. Sure the Plaintiffs lawyer can call the GJ witnesses or the Reasoned Decision witnesses and both you and I would expect them to say the same thing under oath in the qui tam case. And based on what we know these witnesses said in their affidavits for USADA one would expect their evidence to be the same. But we don't know it is the same as what they testified to in the GJ case without their transcripts.

After a witness testifies in examination in chief, the Defence lawyers get to cross examine the Relator's witnesses. And it is a fundamental rule of cross examination that a lawyer can cross examine a witness on their prior sworn testimony about the same subject matter. The only way the Defence lawyer (and the jurors) knows whether that testimony is consistent with the testimony in the qui tam case is if he has a copy of the transcript of the GJ testimony.

While you may think this discussion is a distraction and a rathole, this is pretty fundamental stuff that can have a real bearing on the outcome of an issue in the case.

Let's be clear here. Since Armstrong never testified in front of GJ, in fact the only time where he testified under oath (that I'm aware of) is the original SCA deposition. In the SCA case, Armstrong is the one who perjured himself in the depositions. McIlvain of Oakley perjured herself too. Somehow I doubt it's Armstrong's lawyers who are going to be the ones bringing this issue up first, since they will be digging their client's grave, opening the door to obstruction of justice charges.

Whose testimony from the GJ are Armstrong's lawyers likely to cross-examine? Landis? Hamilton? I'd imagine whatever testimony they may have provided will be well-corroborated by other witnesses from USADA's "Reasoned Decision."

RATHOLE.

If I didn't know better "MarkvW's" track record for accurate predictions here on this forum is almost as good as Tim Herman. (snicker)
Dude should just stop wasting everybody's time vortexing.

 

[aphronesis]

Let's be clear here. Since Armstrong never testified in front of GJ, in fact the only time where he testified under oath (that I'm aware of) is the original SCA deposition. In the SCA case, Armstrong is the one who perjured himself in the depositions. McIlvain of Oakley perjured herself too. Somehow I doubt it's Armstrong's lawyers who are going to be the ones bringing this issue up first, since they will be digging their client's grave, opening the door to obstruction of justice charges.

Whose testimony from the GJ are Armstrong's lawyers likely to cross-examine? Landis? Hamilton? I'd imagine whatever testimony they may have provided will be well-corroborated by other witnesses from USADA's "Reasoned Decision."

RATHOLE.

If I didn't know better "MarkvW's" track record for accurate predictions here on this forum is almost as good as Tim Herman. (snicker)
Dude should just stop wasting everybody's time vortexing.

Calm down sparky.

 

[MarkvW]

Let's be clear here. Since Armstrong never testified in front of GJ, in fact the only time where he testified under oath (that I'm aware of) is the original SCA deposition. In the SCA case, Armstrong is the one who perjured himself in the depositions. McIlvain of Oakley perjured herself too. Somehow I doubt it's Armstrong's lawyers who are going to be the ones bringing this issue up first, since they will be digging their client's grave, opening the door to obstruction of justice charges.

Whose testimony from the GJ are Armstrong's lawyers likely to cross-examine? Landis? Hamilton? I'd imagine whatever testimony they may have provided will be well-corroborated by other witnesses from USADA's "Reasoned Decision."

RATHOLE.

If I didn't know better "MarkvW's" track record for accurate predictions here on this forum is almost as good as Tim Herman. (snicker)
Dude should just stop wasting everybody's time vortexing.

Maserati! I've missed you. Glad you're back.

 

[oboingo]

Maserati! I've missed you. Glad you're back.

I have no idea who this Maserati guy is and couldn't care less if you think I'm him.

As for your past puerile & feeble attempts at trolling, you might want to look this up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Since the mods here are still apparently laboring under the misguided notion that your posts are deserving of dignified responses, let me be among the many to tell you flat out to your face you're simply demonstrating your stupid poseur "credentials" with every post you make. If I were in their shoes I would have kickbanned your derrière long ago for vortexing.

I'm certainly not surprised Chewbacca won't even give you time of day at this point.

I bid you good day. Plenty of other people besides myself have already deconstructed your many bullpuckies. Your shelf life has gone way past stale.

 

[Cycle Chic]

BBC 4 9pm tonight Lance Armstrong documentary

Should be worth a watch - on now

 

[webvan]

Thanks, just tuned in.

Wow, he was stocky in 1993 wasn't he!

 

[ggusta]

BBC 4 9pm tonight Lance Armstrong documentary

Should be worth a watch - on now

thanks .

 

[Bosco10]

BBC 4 9pm tonight Lance Armstrong documentary

Should be worth a watch - on now

Can't we yanks watch?

 

[Race Radio]

Can't we yanks watch?

They have not found a distribution method in the US yet. Hopefully they do as it is a good movie.

They went the TV route in Australia and the UK. The result is this is likely the most watched Armstrong documentary, and it is pretty dark. Walsh's movie is also finished and will be released. There was a flood of Armstrong book, all very negative, that sold well. The one positive one, Hincapie's, was failure.

Lance has dreams of once again being a public figure. With the overwhelming public view being negative he has a huge challenge ahead of him

 

[buckle]

Can't we yanks watch?

Ought to have its own thread. Outstanding BBC doc. I just love Betsy! Deserves her own show. The 2009 comeback was glossed over for obvious reasons and then mysteriously morphed into 2010 by a slight of hand. Proof it nothing else that this was a British doc. Walsh was brilliant.

 

[Markyboyzx6r]

Incredible. Even after all these years, when you sit back and look at this story in its totality, it still makes your jaw drop. Poignant too, because cycling has learned nothing, and possibly (probably) never will.

 

[Pricey_sky]

A really well made documentary, even now I have to watch and shake my head as to how it all unfolded over the years.

I notice Channel 4 are doing an Armstrong documentary to, it's on tomorrow at 9pm.

 

[BYOP88]

Shame these things are popping up 10-15 years to late.

 

[gooner]

It was a brilliant portrayal of the whole story. Even knowing all the details beforehand, it's still staggering looking back to see what unfolded over the years with it. I don't think we'll see a fraud like it ever again in the future and it goes for all sports.

Betsy was excellent and I just finished Emma's book and she said Walsh has fallen out with some of his sources which helped him, including Betsy. Surprised to hear this.

 

[gooner]

They have not found a distribution method in the US yet. Hopefully they do as it is a good movie.

They went the TV route in Australia and the UK. The result is this is likely the most watched Armstrong documentary, and it is pretty dark. Walsh's movie is also finished and will be released. There was a flood of Armstrong book, all very negative, that sold well. The one positive one, Hincapie's, was failure.

Lance has dreams of once again being a public figure. With the overwhelming public view being negative he has a huge challenge ahead of him

Emma has asked for none of her story to be a part of the movie.

 

[mrhender]

It was a brilliant portrayal of the whole story. Even knowing all the details beforehand, it's still staggering looking back to see what unfolded over the years with it. I don't think we'll see a fraud like it ever again in the future and it goes for all sports.

Betsy was excellent and I just finished Emma's book and she said Walsh has fallen out with some of his sources which helped him, including Betsy. Surprised to hear this.

If you or anyone else for that matter stumbles across a link in the foreseeable future, a reference here would be much appreciated..

Thanks in advance.

B

 

[westerner]

Agreed that the doc was very well done, very strong, no fluff and easy to watch. I started to watch thinking ho hum, at the end I was like, phew! And even knowing the story and all the many details its still something powerful to see it all together with pictures, the interviews and a lot of historical footage. Eerie almost watching the post tour celebration footage now knowing what was to come. To see a piece with so many of those who suffered from the wrath of Armstrong and Co. telling their stories documented (despite limited time) better than I've seen done the pain they went through. I found this part quite palpable.

 

[Race Radio]

I just finished Emma's book and she said Walsh has fallen out with some of his sources which helped him, including Betsy. Surprised to hear this.

That is not true

 

[gooner]

That is not true

I was thinking that myself when I read it initially. I heard Betsy and Walsh together on the radio over here well after Lance's fall and they were getting on great.

Weird that she put it in the book.

Who filled her head with this info?

The line at the end of the book:

For the first time, too, it appears he has fallen out with some of his key sources, like Betsy.

 

[webvan]

Not bad, although it felt a lot like watching another version of the "Armstrong Lie", albeit with different footage/interviews.

 

[mewmewmew13]

It was a brilliant portrayal of the whole story. Even knowing all the details beforehand, it's still staggering looking back to see what unfolded over the years with it. I don't think we'll see a fraud like it ever again in the future and it goes for all sports.

Betsy was excellent and I just finished Emma's book and she said Walsh has fallen out with some of his sources which helped him, including Betsy. Surprised to hear this.

Don't think he and Betsy have 'fallen out'..I may be wrong but I think that's incorrect.