The case against former International Monetary Fund Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn appears to be rapidly unraveling; as perhaps it should given what we have learned in the two months since the case first broke. Still, the collapse of an initially-promising, high profile prosecution should be no more a catalyst leading to calls for the head of the prosecutor, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., than should the initial arrest of DSK on charges of forcible rape, have justified calls for the Frenchman's head.
Lessons are to be gleaned for all sides in the unenviable situation in which Vance now finds himself. Unfortunately, the case has deteriorated into everything a prosecution in the public interest should not be.
Perhaps most distressing has been the politicization of the case against Strauss-Kahn precipitated by the commendable openness of the District Attorney's office in publicizing early and significant weaknesses in its case. I and a number of other legal observers have been critical of Vance's office for his initial handling of Strauss-Kahn, and for apparently failing to conduct sufficient initial investigation of the woman who claimed to be the victim of his alleged assault on May 14th. However, beating up on the prosecutor for considering dropping the charges in light of the new revelations about the alleged victim's past and her demonstrated lack of credibility ill-serves justice in any regard.
Yet, this is exactly what a number of New York political figures are doing; and in the most unfortunate way -- by playing the race card. Democratic State Sen. Bill Perkins made no bones about doing this at a news conference last week in which he appeared with a group of people drawn from his "community." Perkins reportedly was almost proud in declaring that race is an issue, stating that to "ignore race would not really be looking at reality." He and Bronx Democratic Assemblyman Eric Stevenson essentially put Vance on notice, the DA would face a political maelstrom if he succumbed to what may be his ultimate judgment as a prosecutor; which would be to dismiss the charges against DSK because the weakening evidence and mounting implausibility of the chief witness would make it extremely difficult if not impossible to obtain a conviction.
Unless Perkins is somehow privy to confidential information from the police or the District Attorney's office, his assertions in support of the hotel housekeeper's side of the story are no more a basis for demands on the DA than are calls for DSK's immediate and total exoneration by his supporters in France. Yet Perkins huffs and puffs indignantly that Vance has not responded to his exhortations to plow ahead with the prosecution no matter what. Vance is entirely correct in not bowing to such pressure with a political figure clearly lacking knowledge of the case, other than what he has read publicly and what the alleged victim's supporters might have told him.
Strauss-Kahn's detractors "across the pond" in France, perhaps also bowing to political pressures, seem to have convinced a female writer to come forward and file a complaint against DSK for an alleged sexual attack on her, eight years after the fact; and as to which she filed no report at the time of the alleged 2003 incident. Whether any of the pressure for France to join in beating Strauss-Kahn like a piñata comes from this side of the Atlantic, is not clear; but it would not cause much surprise if such linkage were discovered.
The good news in all this is that both Ben Brafman and William Taylor, Strauss-Kahn's attorneys, as well as Vance appear to be handling the case exactly as they should -- quietly and professionally, and divorced from the shrill calls to destroy either DSK or Vance in the process. If the DA exercises his discretion to drop the charges because they are unsustainable legally, he is virtually certain to be the target of continued political attacks; but he will have gained a great deal of credibility for his office and for his stature as an attorney.
Bob Barr served as a U.S. Attorney in Georgia under Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and for eight years as a member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.
Sources close to the defense (Brafman?) gave the stories about the victim being a prostitute to the New York Post. Theseappear to be total slanders - no proofs what so ever, her life andherfamily's life destroyed for ever by these smears.
Is this what Bob Barr regards as being 'quiet and professional'. Time You grew some ethics, Mr Barr!!
I agree except on one issue. I now believe, in retrospect, that the criticism of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. rush is unjustified.
Given DSK's clear intention to fee, Vance had little option. While I dislike blaming the victim, it must be pointed out that DSK's clear intention to flee heightened the need to act quickly. The result, charging before ready, is the result of that time pressure.
I am not surprised to find you defending DSK.
The accuser may have her own problems.....but this man committed rape (according to strong evidence and statements)
What.......news reports from his wife's show in France?
This case is suppose to be based strictly on evidence. All of you poor maid defenders, ever wondered how 6 foot maid was attacked without leaving any scratches on his body, was “tortured” for 20 minutes that she spent in DSK’s room and then went off to clean other rooms. Why did she enter a 3,000 per night suite while the guest is still in.. Come on only idiots would believe in “rape” story. This case is politically motivated.
Perhaps we need stricter interpetations of our Constitution and other laws to discourage the abuses of proscutitors, to protect innocents until after resolutions of these cases and to prevent defendants from their own pre-trial abuses.
Treating a potential president of France like a common street thug would have been bad enough, but Vance did more than that, much more: he took a case that could have been quietly handled and turned it in the Crime of the Century.
He sat up at night thinking of ways to make the case even more sensational like slapping DSK with a 6 million dollar bail and a placing machine-gun toting security detail around his house 24-7.
Oh, and how about the "perp walk"? Nice touch, that, wasn't it?
Vance could have done that in the middle of the night when the media was asleep and DSK wasn't unshaven and disheveled from sleeping in his clothes, but that, of course would have ruined the opportunity to try DSK in the media, so Vance waited until all the media was lined up and had their cameras rolling before parading the poor man before them.
I could go on with how Vance bent over backwards to turn the case into a three-ringed circus, but I think you get the point.
However, canceling the performance before the interval is still much more embarrassing for the impresario than canceling the show before it started because there was no script.
Oh ya.
Sure.
Rush to judgment and trial by media is more like it.
Barr you are just out of it--as usual.
They are worried that their star witness will be impeached on the stand by her actions, past lies, and current lies.....
But as far as evidence, both DNA and physical AND circumstantial, and strong believable statements from the witness.
It just so happened that the jurors believed the accuser and sent Mike down for a couple of counts. Did she have credibility issues too? Just don't know.
One other piece of evidence--circumstantial--is that throughout the event the door of DSK's suite was never closed. The inference here--hope the jury gets this one--is that if the contact were consensual as DSK claims-- negotiated at some level: freebee[ wow] or non-freebee--then the hotel worker would have locked the door.
If the worker's background is fair game then what about DSK's. Some years ago he was accused of "raping a maid in a Mexican hotel room" and it was settled. The there's the "rutting chimpanzee" accusation by Tristane Banon some years ago.
Another bit of evidence: if consensual and a freebee then no need to complain. If consensual and a non-freebee then what was the fee and and where's the money? Nothing of such was found in the worker's purse.
I am a bit puzzled as to why the hotel worker's lawyers did not brief her carefully about the implications of the GJ testimony.
As for a Grand Jury inquest, I do recall that there was one in another extremely high-profile case of this magnitude: Polanski. Consider that in that case, she was on 13 years old and testified before a Grand Jury as well.
Thank you for an opinion. I'm glad the prosecutor has had another.
Anybody else on the same page as reality?