Rep. Jefferson and U. S. Attorneys

Anyone watching the news over the past two years has a clear impression that the frozen packages of dollars in Louisiana Representative William Jefferson's freezer is prima facie evidence he's guilty.

The news media seems to accept that and report any new information with a presumption of guilt.

Before we get caught up in the laundry list handed out by the U. S. Attorney pursuing the case, we better be careful not to be trapped into becoming a public jury who has already convicted Representative Jefferson.

In my experience as an advocate for pastors in trouble, I discovered how easy it was to believe the first reading of the complaint. That's natural, unfortunately. But even what appears to be decisive evidence has not been tested in court before a real jury who watch as evidence is brought and cross examination occurs in the search for truth.

Prosecutors try to poison the well of public opinion (too readily supported by some media) and to influence prospective jurors. The defense is put in a position of having to mount a media defense before they even have all the information the prosecution has. If you were the accused, you'd be rather put out by these realities.

But what makes the Jefferson case so difficult for us is that the Attorney General's office and U. S. Attorneys in particular have been so compromised by politicization that we must be especially careful of all their public statements. That loss of credibility will be a barrier the prosecution will have to overcome down the road in court, if indeed it can.

Now is their best chance to manipulate the news. Representative Jefferson will be so buried by the publicity that even if the court finds him not guilty, who will believe the jury?

Today comes the Republican Minority Leader calling on the Democrats to hold an ethics hearing within 30 days to rule on the Representative's seat in the house.

That sounds so reasonable. Why shouldn't the Democrats face up to one of their own being guilty of corruption? The Dems made ending corruption a high priority in the 2006 elections.

What if the ethics committee does meet and makes a decision before the court meets?

If the ethics committee exonerates Jefferson, the Repubs can scream favoritism because "they protected their own," NO MATTER WHAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE.

If the ethics committee comes out against Jefferson, a tempting option given how much public opinion has been stacked against him, then the Repubs will be able to claim some kind of high ground while at the same time prejudicing the court with the ethics committee's "mini-conviction."

Most institutions have some form of suspension which in itself appears prejudicial. The suspension usually lasts until the court deals with the case. As slowly as justice grinds, that's a long time. A suspension is in order if the accused face charges that were directly related to their job performance.

Because not all accusations are relevant to the job, suspension may not be appropriate.

Tell that to a hostile public.

If the ethics committee does not meet, they will look like they are unwilling to face the problem.

Almost no matter what the ethics committee does, the decision would be treated politically. Representative Jefferson will not come out looking good or be helped in his defense.

The credibilty problem caused by the current administration makes everything they do questionable. What a shame.

I lived in Louisiana for years and heard many of the stories of corruption amongst the dominant Democratic Party (many of whom became Republican after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill). The tradition for any Louisiana politician to use office creatively for personal benefit is very real and a problem for all Pelican State politicians.

Some politicians do things because they have the chance by virtue of their elected office. They are not just from one party. Greed is not Republican or Democratic.

But neither should justice be!