Stunned, I am.

She is as horrible a human as her vile husband. Rape is not "seduction." Her vile husband is not accused of "seduction."

She's been an enabler for a long time.

Oops, should have read it before responding.

Guess it's one of those things that are harsher in hindsight.

Just the Hague Evidence Convention, the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the Hague Civil Procedure Convention, and the Hague Service Convention.

No. It would be hearsay.

The time line is pretty well filled out with a succession of supervisors getting her to tell what happened. If another employee told her the suite was empty before she entered to clean, it supports her story as well. I don't see anything so far that would support a set up theory.

DS-K is brunt toast.

The deposition of a witness who is "unavailable" may be used in a civil case. I think the rule may be the same in a criminal case for testimony at a preliminary hearing in some states (even though defense counsel may not have had reason to cross-examine the witness in the same way counsel would have done at trial). If there is sufficient evidence that a defendant as to whom a witness has testified in a grand jury proceeding made the witness "unavailable" by the defendant's actions (i.e., murdered by him), his testimony may be used in many jurisdictions, too.

There are many things Americans can be criticized for in the universe. Their criminal justice system is not one of them. Conducting jury trials is simply one thing they do with more procedural and evidentiary protections for the defendant than the systems of almost if not all countries in the world.

Sure, there are good arguments I've seen for why the perp walk is not appropriate. But there are also good arguments for why defendants should be entitled to a trial by jury rather than trial by some institutionalized judge. France doesn't do that. There are good arguments for why the detailed rulings of judges should be open to the public and transparent. France disagrees. There are good arguments against searches and seizures of evidence against a defendant without a judicial warrant. France disagrees. There are reasons why Americans do not believe in arresting suspects without a warrant. France disagrees.

When French critics attack the "presumption of innocence" in the United States, those attacks need to be put in the proper context.

French law is why the Louisiana state laws are so errr. strange...

The State Department disagrees with your interpretation.

Further, a U.S. court would not be forcing a French citizen to testify. A French court would be doing that, pursuant to French law. If the procedure is done properly and comports with international and municipal law, a French court should not resist the proper procedure, especially if they want our courts to cooperate with their requests in the future. Since letters rogatory are also addressed by French municipal law, I don't see why a French court would break a French law. Nations generally uphold their treaty obligations when no core national interest is at stake. They rarely violate them simply out of a fit of pique, but obey laws when opinio juris dictates.

There might be valid reasons for refusing such a request, but I can't think of one offhand. They are generally available both for prosecution and defense purposes.

As Loh pointed out earlier though, if Banon is already whining and grumbling about her unhappiness about the prosecution for some bizarre reason, it's doubtful the prosecution would want her as a witness in the first place.

It is also a major procedural pain to force witnesses from other jurisdictions to appear in your case in that it causes all kinds of scheduling havoc and logistical problems due to the uncertainty of the outcome of any legal disputes. This is true not only for a witness in France who a prosecutor would want to testify in a US court, but for a witness in a US state separate from the other US state in which a trial takes place. I've seen this battle played out in cases I've personally handled. The lesson usually learned is that if a witness doesn't want to appear, he or she is probably not going to have to. (granted: I'm not a federal prosecutor handling high-profile criminal cases, where the stakes are much higher)

That's where most of the recent case law is from, specifically terrorism trials. This case, while it is going to be very high profile, involves a state prosecution in a state court, and it is unlikely to be worth the highly expensive and procedurally complex task of retaining French counsel, filing with a U.S. District Court, shepherding the procedure through any challenges by the French witness (who may have valid claims for whatever equivalent France has to protective orders), and the apparent hostility of the witness toward the prosecution makes the whole effort unrewarding. With a limited, albeit large budget, it is simply not likely to be worth it to get this particular witness, especially if they can find a more willing witness. When a witness is willing, they're not going to make it difficult on you to get their testimony. In this case, they might even find witnesses willing to come to the U.S. to testify, and that would be a lot better. In that event, since the unwilling witness will only provide cumulative testimony anyway, why bother?

I was just pointing out that we do have these procedures for obtaining testimony from foreign witnesses, and they have the same rights to seek assistance from our courts. Nations are generally pretty good about adhering to these processes, so long as the rather tricky process is followed correctly.

I have a case now, which has been dragging on for years, where a witness whose deposition I took several years ago is now 90, but still completely competent. She is a delightful old lady who is still alert and mobile. But she does not want to testify in my case, which is going to jury trial in September. She has made her position very clear, and snapped at me the last time I talked to her on the phone. I learned after I took her deposition that she has knowledge of one small but important fact that no one asked her about (including me) at her deposition. While she knows that fact -- and told me so two years ago -- when I last talked to her she claimed she no longer remembered it, or remembered it clearly. Based on the way she told me I thought she was lying to get out of testifying. Would she also lie under oath?

The associate in my firm working with me on this case suggests that we subpoena her and force her to appear (but provide her with transportation), since she has that one important piece of important information to provide. I have explained to the young Jedi that a witness you want to call who can help your case, who doesn't want to appear, can sink your case instead. Just when I ask her the money question she could say, "Mr. Friegen, you know I didn't want to testify, and now you want me to lie."

Bye bye strong case.

I figured out another way to get in her testimony -- from my own client based on a state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. It won't be quite as good as her testifying, but I can't risk it. Likewise, here, if the Manhattan D.A. has a strong case -- and the forensics seem to suggest the D.A. does -- why put on a reluctant witness who won't add much but who could hurt your case?

Tests confirm that DS-K 's DNA was found on the blouse of the house cleaner who is alleging sexual assault.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/DS ... 63309.html

Other tests are still being performed on other materials from the hotel room.

But it was consensual! She had sex with him suddenly, then ran out into the hall frantically crying as a set-up to frame him. The jury will surely buy that.

There is a very strange statement here attributed to his defense team about how the assault may be consensual.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/stra ... z1NDKLnpA3

Then, there are the two hotel staff members he attempted to lure to his suite for a drink. To top it off, there was his remark to the flight attendance just moments before his arrest. A true lout.

I would just point out that "prior bad acts" are presumptively inadmissible in a criminal case. Obviously they do get in, but never expressly to prove a person's propensity to commit a crime. That is, if Tristane Bannon were to show up in a courthouse in NY, ready to testify for the prosecution,, any defense attorney worth his or her salt would be fighting like hell to keep that testimony out.

I realize that it would come in under the Federal Rules of Evidence, because FRE 413 specifically allows it -- but this is NY State proceeding. I don't practice in NY so I'm not particularly familiar with NY rules of evidence -- but I don't see anything here that would authorize admission of such evidence, particularly not in the case in chief: http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/20 ... tda60.html
(Impeachment is another story entirely. If the defendant takes the stand in his own defense, testifies that the sex was consensual and that in any case he is always a perfect gentleman and would never dream of touching a woman without her explicit consent .... well then, all bets are off).

I'd also point out that when a defendant is a multi-millionaire, there are some other options available to defense counsel in a sexual assault case that probably present a safer alternative than actually going to trial.

I would think the amount of his bail would be sufficient.

And yet this man is free on $1 million bail.

Remember I said that if you have enough money, you can get a whole different level of justice in this great land of ours?

Anyone can afford justice in America. But it takes real money to buy yourself a little INjustice.

Yep.

Dershowitz must have forgotten that their priority right now isn't to get DSK exonerated. Their priority is to bring in a lot more celebrity clients to their law firm, whenever the celebs are charged with criminal offenses. At this stage of the game, publicity for the lawyers is Job One. I mean, the guy brutally attacked a woman and is toast, n'est ce pas? 'Specially with the DNA evidence?

But the law firm is going to be around for many years, and those guys are hungry.

In another example of the cultural differences in play in this case, the French media has now published the name of the victim and her photos, while expressing confusion over why the American media hadn't already done so. But remember, they were outraged at photos of the perp walk!

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... ape-victim

Before you get your anti-French venom riled up though, consider that multiple sources report an interesting phenomenon currently taking place within the French media: one of introspection, rather than of anti-Americanism, as the press reacts to various features of our justice system and society that the French aren't accustomed to. (A perfect example is the fact that both of these articles were brought to my attention by a French journalist I follow on twitter).

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... used_to_be

What is really getting to me is that this man is in his 60s and I am having a hard time imagining this kind of behaviour with the hotel receptionists, the flight attendant etc is something new for him. That he could rise to such a high position while basically acting like a pig truly disappoints me.

If the reports are true: Emotionally he is a scarred, inadequate person. He has to prove his manhood, over and over. And it quickly lapses into domination and violence. He is a sick pig. And a criminal.