« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Wilkes: Leave The Hookers out of It
Will Brent Wilkes beat the rap? Or has he said his last Boom Shaka Laka?
We'll soon find out. The trial for one of Duke Cunningham's favorite defense contractors is set to begin Wednesday, when Wilkes will try to convince a jury that the hundreds of thousands of dollars of gifts and payments that he gave Cunningham weren't bribes.
But Wilkes' lawyer Mark Geragos had a number of requests today before the trial gets started. Among them was a motion to preclude any evidence that Wilkes had provided Cunningham with prostitutes.
Geragos reasons that prosecutors are just out to dirty his client:
There is little probative value in presenting the testimony of professional call girls, persons admittedly in the business of regularly breaking the law and making a living through illegal vice. The real purpose of presenting that evidence is to sully Mr. Wilkes in the eyes of the jury. Mr. Wilkes was married during the alleged incident, and the government seeks to drag out a dirty story of adultery and vice, not to prove any element of the alleged offenses.
Geragos points to the prosecutors' dirty habit of regularly dropping references to the prostitutes in their filings (like here and here) to prove that they're out to sully Wilkes. He argues that any mention of the call girls and especially one prostitutes' scheduling book should be barred at trial because it would lead the jury to develop a "negative and prejudiced view of Mr. Wilkes’s moral character."
The issue is expected to be discussed at a hearing later today.
Comments (19)
don de drain wrote on October 1, 2007 1:49 PM:That type of motion did not work for Jose Padilla when he tried to keep out the stuff that made him look bad. Can't imagine it would work for Wilkes, unless, of course, we have two different standards of justice in the US, one for well-connected folks who can hire the likes of Geragos and another for Muslims who have been accused of crimes. That would NEVER happen, right? [*snark*]
Seriously, I suspect that Padilla's motion(s) to exclude evidence as unduly prejudicial had a lot more merit than Wilkes' motions to exclude evidence as unduly prejudicial. When you are accusing someone of making illegal bribes, you need to explain to the jury exactly what form the alleged bribes took. In Wilkes' case, the alleged bribes apparently took the form of making prostitutes available. I doubt the Court will strip the prosecutors of their ability to present this evidence. (pun intended)
Dave Bowman wrote on October 1, 2007 1:50 PM:Your honor, the facts are biased against my client, so I am presenting a motion to preclude any facts from being presented at this trial.
gonzone wrote on October 1, 2007 1:56 PM:And besides IOKIYAR.
Bill Brock - Chcago wrote on October 1, 2007 2:21 PM:Forthcoming: the Chewbacca Defense.
moondancer wrote on October 1, 2007 2:31 PM:Besides, it just isn't GOP without a little illicit sex involved. If I was Geragos I think I'd try the Vitter defense. Seemed to work well for that whoremeister.
Da Judge wrote on October 1, 2007 2:33 PM:Geragos - Choice of the Doomed
NH Dem wrote on October 1, 2007 2:40 PM:"There is little probative value in presenting the testimony of professional call girls, persons admittedly in the business of regularly breaking the law and making a living through illegal vice."
Sooo..... they won't be calling Cunningham to testify?
Petesmom wrote on October 1, 2007 3:53 PM:I don't see anything in this filing that specifies call GIRLS. Cunningham has a long history of ambiguous sexuality, and if I recall correctly some of the evidence in the Michael part of the case was found with pornography of a "personal and highly embarrassing nature."
It doesn't matter one way or the other so far as the bribery goes, but it's always entertaining when republicans get caught with their pants around their ankles in the presence of a call boy instead of a call girl. The hypocrisy factor is so much more delicious.
Oscar wrote on October 1, 2007 4:06 PM:Petesmom, hate to disappoint you but the FBI summary of Cunningham's prison interview from this February says that Cunningham remarked that Wilkes' prostitute was "the younger and prettier of the two women"...
JohnW1141 wrote on October 1, 2007 4:44 PM:Weren't the hookers part of the bribery?
anonymous wrote on October 1, 2007 5:15 PM:We can't have illegal activities enter into a trial about illegal activities now, can we...
Pastor Doodah wrote on October 1, 2007 5:44 PM:So he wants to be tried as an upright highly moral, happily married bribe-taker, not as a low-down, immoral, whoring, adulterous bribe-taker? Should have thought about that before he took hookers as a bribe, I'd have to cluck.
POed Lib wrote on October 1, 2007 6:33 PM:Can this guy write! Wow, he should be on the staff of SNL!! I enjoyed reading this tremendously. The laugh from the belly ...
kmsor wrote on October 1, 2007 6:50 PM:Let's recall that by current Republican standards as long as it was heterosexual adultery it can be overlooked. It is only homosexual adultery that counts against you.
Scott Peterson wrote on October 1, 2007 8:16 PM:Wilkes, you're so screwed.
steambomb wrote on October 2, 2007 2:52 AM:Look Wilkes. It doesn't matter women or influence. A pimp is a pimp is a pimp. Got it? Good.
Marys cloned lamb wrote on October 2, 2007 5:53 AM:Wilkes is still married? Cunningham's wife immediately dumped him. The hookers must be hotter than Wilkes's wife and he fears she will clean him out.
mcrose wrote on October 2, 2007 7:07 AM:Maybe, the argument is that since they are all gay, call-girls can not be considered a bribe???
Dunno, I'm just trying to understand how providing what many would consider a "service" is irrelevent to a bribery case.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 2, 2007 10:10 AM:Ah come on guys and gals,
Who hasn't bought their Republican Congressperson a coupla dozen hookers to get million of dollars in earmarks?
If my Congressperson were a Republican . . . I'd have a few charges on my VISA(R) . . .