Joe Halderman's Lawyer, Gerald Shargel: Case 'Makes No Sense, Want To Cross-Examine Letterman' (VIDEO)

Gerald Shargel, lawyer for Joe Halderman, the CBS News producer accused of blackmailing David Letterman over sexual indiscretions, defended his client vigorously on the Today Show this morning, telling host Ann Curry that "the prosecution's case in so many ways makes no sense."

Curry pressed Shargel over the mounting evidence that the police claim to have amassed during a sting operation in which Halderman took possession of a fake $2 million check. Shargel insisted that these points "only take on significance by looking at the surrounding circumstances":

What this trial will be about, it will be all about the surrounding circumstances. Motives, intent. It's not only the motive and intent and conduct of Joe Halderman, it's the motive, intent and conduct of David Letterman as well. As I've said, I look forward to cross-examining Letterman.

Shargel is not clear in how he will make the motive, intent and conduct of Letterman relevant, but the prospect of the late night host being cross-examined during a trial is sure to fan the flames of this story further.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Comments

[webwriter]

I don't condone what Letterman did, but he's not the one who'll be on trial here. The focus of this case is Halderman's extortion attempt, not Letterman's shoddy personal behavior.

[hmsbeagle]

"Look forward " what a ninkumpoop davis pre emptied and exonerated himself live on tv , it a no show for halderman , a shag in the bag is davis's bizness not anyones . well done dave you old coggher.

[lisaman]

I love how defense attorneys work. This attorney is talking to Letterman, he is telling him that he is going to ask him all sorts of embarressing questions. I heard this guy has handled a few high profile cases including John Gotti so I am sure he doesn't come cheap. Of course the publicity surrounding the case may be payment enough for him.

But I think we should all ask ourselves, why does the justice system allow lawyers to treat victims, even though he is not innocent he is still a victim, like criminals? Why should he be allowed to ask Letterman about his sex life? The very information Halderman attempted to use to blackmail him may come out in court anyway. So if he does the right thing and calls the police, his privacy is not protected. How is that right? As long as he was not married and the sex was consensual, I don't think he should have to answer any questions about it!

[SolnzeUSB]

That's where the judge comes in. He may not have to answer anything about his sex life, but only stick to the actual blackmailing.

[imsosure]

Try to re-direct the extortion case onto Letterman and you'll have yourself and larger penalty than you started with. You'll end up paying his legal fees and possibly doing hard-time for the crime. Seriously, Letterman is to clever to have some wannabe criminal make him loose much of anything. CBS is not his employer, World Wide Pants is so the idea that CBS can do anything about this isn't even valid. The guy who tried picking up a quick 2M is going to regret this for the rest of his life, but then this was his choice. See you at the gray bar hotel, bucko.

[Wiseronenow]

Handelman attorney wasn't "talking" to the viewing masses when he was on the Today Show, and why some felt he was being too vague and doesn't have a leg to stand on, he was talking "specifically" to Dave by his comments. Like I've been saying there is far, far more to this story than what we've been told. I would bet you that Dave may have received pictures and "certain" info from Handelman, but I wouldn't be surprised that didn't know nuttin about the extent of the diary Birkett kept. Dave b/l/e/w his w/a/d figuratively and literally when he emphasized, and rightly so, the extortion, but we may all find out that Dave was a wee-bit more reckless shall we say than he wants for it all to come out. And, that's what Dave is worried about now and his lawyers. Reason why he is building a case of the so-called devoted husband, "now", apologizing on teevee to his wife because I still say there are others that just may come forward. Lawyer up, Dave.

[SolnzeUSB]

And all of that can be barred from the trial and gagged. So whatever extra blackmailing may now be coming out from lawyers, can be more than squashed.

[skyslimit]

You might as well try to win a case against God.

[Snerdgronk]

Mankind hasn't evolved to that point yet ...

Snerd

[CitizenKane16]

The defense attorney is doing what seems to be the typical thing to do - blame the victim. The victim here is Letterman, believe it or not. Many seem to have made this case about whether or not he should have slept with this woman - that's not what this case is about. Many lawyers have taken the despicable position of blaming the victim, whether it be rape or, in this case, blackmail. This is pointless and the coward's way out when they know that their client cannot win any other way.

[houstonbch]

OK. so Stephanie (aka Monty) is the EX-girlfriend on the blackmailer. She did not participate, from what I have read, in the extortion. She has not voiced, again from what I have read, any claims of harassment or misconduct against Dave. While he was wrong for having such a relationship with a subordinate, but it was not illegal and it sounds to be consensual.

I don't look to my late-night talk show host for moral guidance, and don't expect them to be any less human than I am. Joe Halderman, the blackmailer, is just an opportunist and a punk. Make your own money and make it honestly - otherwise be willing to face the consequences.

[Sprash]

I agree with you, but why call him a punk and give punks a bad name ;)

[CitizenKane16]

I agree with you on almost every point except I don't see where Letterman was wrong. Neither of them was married - he had a girlfriend but we don't know what type of relationshiop that was. This seemed to have been consentual. She is a grown woman and does has not accused him of harassment in any way - she actually has had only good things to say about him.

[skyslimit]

Letterman is married.

[SolnzeUSB]

He was "wrong" for having sex with a subordinate. It is not illegal, but definitely frowned upon, especially when they will be dissecting Dave's credibility.

[exmate]

No matter what Letterman did, blackmail is blackmail.

[tzbar]

Right !!! Dave can sleep with anyone he wants. It was not a RAPE. The young lady agreed to sleep with him. The story here is the blackmail not the sex. The lawyer is paid to change the facts. Can he change the facts?

[Bloggerrogr]

Top 10 Reasons Not to Blackmail a TV Personality
(10) They don’t have a sense of humor
(9) They have better makeup artists
(8) If the check doesn’t clear, you could have a problem
(7) It’ll probably put you in a higher tax bracket
(6) Unless your publisher is Rupert Murdoch you may have trouble
nailing down a book deal
(5) Their audience will probably laugh you off the set
(4) They have better publicists
(3) You have to have really good 8 by 10’s
(2) Your “people” will have to talk to their “people”
(1) There’s really no such thing as ‘bad publicity…
unless you’re Bob Costas

FWIW

[exmate]

Gerald Shargel (born 1944) is a high-profile defense attorney based in New York is most famous for, along with Bruce Cutler, securing the acquittal of John Gotti Sr. in 1991 on charges that he had ordered the assault of a labor union official.

That says it all.

[otop016]

It doesn't say a thing...everyone's entitled to a defense -- even people you find undesirable. Here's a little secret for ya Sparky...defense attorney's like high profile clients and cases cause it (duh) brings them more work and more fees. Are you suggesting he's not entitled to make a living?

[exmate]

John Gotti was entitled to make a living?
Gerald Shargel is entitled to make a living.
Joe Halderman is entitled to make a living.

I guess that if I had done something wrong, I would want Shargel to be my attorney.
Halderman was wise to chose an attorney who specializes in defending guilty people.

[lizzienapp]

if ever I have seen a stomach turning interview that was it. Think Shargell was on with Geraldo a few times back in the day...why did the Today just let him get out there and bloviate...without a single word of defense for Dave...made my blood boil...plus when all this happened Dave was not even married...I mean since when is that newsworthy??

[otop016]

It became newsworthy when there was an accusation of extortion and Dave went public...are you really that daft?

[Olampean]

He wants to write his own book and needs Dave's confirmation on a few facts that Halderman had not quite nailed down.

He better be careful or Dave will play the tape on the Late Show and lock it in with a special "Top Ten Reasons".

[VTL]

Blah, blah, blah.

Standard defense attorney nonsense.

He makes it sound like Letterman was somehow to blame for the acts of his client.

[CessnaDriver]

A friend of mine once had a defense attorney try to blame him for getting his car stolen. My friend's car was parked outside, at night, and locked. The defense theory was that by doing this my friend was mocking the defendant and forced him to steal the car.

[STILLPISSED]

Hey Zen -

You can be crossed at anytime.....

[coco51]

Gerry Shargel, isn't he an associate at Guiliani's law firm? the plot thickens!!!!!

"You all excited about the 2008 presidential election? There's some interesting potential matchups. For example, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. ... On the one hand, you have a pushy New Yorker with a history marital problems. Or, you have a pushy New Yorker with a history marital problems." --David Letterman

"In 2008, Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, may run for president. And if elected, he'll take a no-nonsense approach to Iraq. And the first thing he's going to do over there is get rid of the squeegee guys." --David Letterman

"It's been kind of a bad week for Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. First, his wife throws him out, 20 minutes later he is arrested for being homeless." --David Letterman

[zenwhenicanbe2]

cross examine dave!? ha! Umm you would be better served spending your time making the case for your client's innocence to keep him out of Riker's Island. Cross examine dave?! this isn't a civil case...it's the People of New York vs. your client. dude, wake up.

[SolnzeUSB]

He may have to take the stand to clarify details of initial contact and then it is up to the judge what cannot be asked.