When Eddie Perez was arraigned after his first arrest in 2009, Perez's lawyer stated that Perez was ready to go to trial at 2:00PM that afternoon. The phrase "Justice delayed is justice denied"has been thrown out repeatedly by Perez and Santos.
But in the latest saga of Perez's corruption scandal, Perez and his attorney seem determined to drag out the process even longer. Although months have gone by since Perez's last visit to Judge Dewey's courtroom, Attorney Santos has waited until the week before Jury selection and pretrial "housekeeping" was to begin to file more motions that may potentially delay the trial even further.
The motions can be read below. The motions seem to be rather short on substance and Santos is doing what defense lawyers. If the truth won't work in your favor for a defense, you grasp at straws and use every trick you can to hopefully avoid watching your client report to prison.
All four motions are somewhat interesting though. I like the request for a change of venue. The motion claims "a generalized anti-Hartford bias from the towns and cities surrounding Hartford" make it impossible for Perez to receive a fair trial. How can this possibly be with that great "leadership" we keep hearing about from the Mayor's Office? If I recall, under Mayor Mike we still had our problems but Mike Peter's was able to build a sense of good will with our suburban neighbors.
Is Perez now telling us that he has squandered that goodwill in his several years as Mayor and the suburbs don't care for him? But the even larger question is why does he want the Jury selection to take place in Hartford and then move the trial after the jury is selected. I might be missing something, but the witnesses will remain the same no matter where the trial is held. After the jury is selected in Hartford, even if the trial venue is moved the jury will remain the same. So what is the benefit of the request for a change of venue after jury selection?
Could it possibly just be a motion to cloud the issue more and delay further? It would appear that way to me.
The only benefit to Perez though, in addition to delaying the inevitable, is that if Hubie Santos' fees are being paid by the City of Hartford as many people believe, the checkbook remains open and no stunt is too costly.
And yes, you read that right, apparently no bills have been submitted yet by Santos, but the City of Hartford claims that they are "obligated" to pay for Perez's defense.
Perez Motions 3-29-10
8 comments:
Ah' the classic, "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" maneuver. I think John Rose teaches this course at various law schools.
I know if I was innocent, as Eddie Perez keeps claiming, I would want a trial right away so I could prove it and move on. In Eddie's case the entire city could move forward.
But then again, if I knew I was likely to lose I would stall to the bitter end.
notice the last line on his motion to move the jury to another venue?
Basically Santos wants to get a shot at picking a second jury if he doesn't like the first one. How fair is that to the prosecution?
I'm no lawyer but the only motion out of those 4 that makes any reasonable sense is allowing Perez to not be present at the jury selection.
Wake up call Eddie. You will not get a "fair" trial no matter who the jury is or where the trial is held. Your case and mug shot made the national news. P.S. People, no matter their race or ethnicity are tired of corrupt politicians. If the word on the street is correct, then it is one of your Park Estreeet boyz who rolled on you to begin with. Viva la justicia!!! My adice, go visit one of your relatives on la isla, and then get "lost" in El Yunque like the Macheteros did...
stalling in hopes of locking in his pension before trial? sounds like he's not very confident of the evidence going his way.
Kevin....the city is only obligated to pay Eddie's lawyer if the state either dismisses the charges or there is a not guilty verdict...
Bruce what if he takes a deal? Is that the same as pleading guilty?
If he pleads guilty in a deal the City isnt obligated to pay his lawyer bills and he must pay those bills himself.
I have communicated with Councilman Ritter on the matter of paying Eddie's legal bills. He seems to be of the opinion that Statute (in particular, Sec. 7-101a) requires Eddie to be compensated. I believe this is a (willing?) misreading of the statute, which in my humble opinion refers to civil suits for damages NOT criminal corruption prosecutions. It is his opinion that in the event of a conviction Eddie would have to reimburse the City. It would be adding injury to insult to taxpayers to have to pay for his defense for taking a gratuity for his public service (to the taxpayers), even if he is acquitted. I would note that as best I can determine the City of Bridgeport never gave any $ to Ganim for legal work on his behalf. Nor, can I find any indication that when he was convicted he had to return $ to the city. Actually, I think if Hartford does pay for Eddie's legal fees there would be a case to sue authorities down there for "malicious, wanton or wilful act or ultra vires act, on the part of such officer or employee while acting in the discharge of his duties." (Sec. 7-101a)
Post a Comment