Author’s note: Below is a brief exchange from the trial transcript for April 10th, 2008. It was striking how poor and lacking-in-detail coverage from Palfrey’s trial was. Reading the transcripts themselves, it’s not difficult to understand why–it was little more than a formality to hold it, and Palfrey’s criminal defense attorney–Preston Burton–didn’t fight very hard for his client.
There’s the real possibility that it’s because he’s rumored to covet a Federal Judgeship, but then there’s the fact that he’s also a partner in a law firm that does extensive contract work for the government internationally. You never know.
But that’s my opinion, decide for yourselves. I wasn’t aware of how informal and shoddy these affairs were conducted until recently, being unable to attend the trial itself. A real eye-opener, that. It must have been excruciating for any defendant to have had to sit there and watch the kangaroo court unfold before them as it surely did this April in Washington D.C.
Reading the transcript, you get the very obvious impression that the Court and the prosecution were working hard to rush the proceedings and that Burton barely mounted a defense at all. At some point, this site will be publishing the entire transcripts in-full.
From Pg. 20-21 of the April 10th, 2008 trial transcript of Deborah Jeane Palfrey
…”MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, we have nothing further for
THE COURT: All right, Ms. Couvillon. You may step
down. (The witness steps down.)
May I see counsel at the bench?
(Bench conference on the record.)
THE COURT: Okay. Where do we stand? Is that it?
MS. CONNELLY: For today, yes.
THE COURT: And what about these other two people?
MS. CONNELLY: Well, one of them is flying back into
town tomorrow, so she’ll be here Monday. The other one we spoke
to — well, the agent spoke yesterday to her in the hospital,
and they’ve diagnosed diverticulitis and they were just debating
when they’re going to release her. They think possibly this
THE COURT: Do we need either one of these people? [Page Break]
MR. BUTLER: The one that’s in the hospital is
racketeering, so the answer is yes.
MS. CONNELLY: I think they both are.
THE COURT: You need all 14 acts, but you’ve got 15
MR. BUTLER: We do have the burden of proof, and we
need sufficient evidence to meet that burden.
THE COURT: Yeah, but so what? There’s only 13 in
baseball. Thirteen out of 14 isn’t bad.
MS. CONNELLY: We’re at 10 out of 14 now.
MR. BUTLER: Well, I would request, Your Honor,
that (inaudible) the last day for court proceedings.
THE COURT: What can you tell us about what you’re
going to do?
MR. BURTON: My inclination is to not put on any
THE COURT: Okay. So we’re looking at one, maybe two
witnesses first thing Monday morning, and then we’re going to
argue and charge.
MR. BURTON: But we do have a rule 29.
THE COURT: Yeah, we have a rule 29. That’ll be a
MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, do you charge first or do
we argue first?
THE COURT: I charge first.” … [Page Break]
[Original Postscript, 11.13.2008]: Talking about baseball gives one the impression that the “wall of professionalism” was basically nonexistent between the prosecution and Judge Robertson, a real convivial and friendly atmosphere between them all. You think they went out and had a drink at trial’s conclusion? I mean, really, if I was one of the AUSAs or USAs, I would’ve went out and gotten the judge laid, frankly. They had a good list of escort services in-hand, so…what scum. Yes, worse than a female pimp. The public was denied coverage of the trial because it was not only handled poorly, the proceedings were rigged from their inception.