| This is a clear outrage. |
``There is no question that the disclosure was calculated and deliberate, with the effect of exposing potential jurors to evidence before it is introduced at trial when both sides will have the opportunity to argue its significance,'' prosecutors said in court papers.
The transcripts were part of a Jan. 4 New York Times story that raised questions about the strength of the case against Padilla. On the transcripts, Padilla is not heard discussing any violent acts or terrorist plots, and many of the conversations seem to be relatively harmless.
| And what do you know, the NYT was involved. |
Three Miami-based public defenders representing Padilla - Michael Caruso, Anthony Natale and Orlando do Campo - acknowledged in court papers that ``one of Jose Padilla's counsel'' provided the transcripts to a Times reporter. The lawyer responsible was not identified. Padilla is also represented by attorney Andrew Patel of New York, but his name does not appear on the document acknowledging responsibility for the leak.
The seven transcripts were covered by a 2005 order by Cooke prohibiting dissemination of ``sensitive'' evidence. The transcripts are of declassified telephone intercepts on which Padilla's voice is heard that were obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Prosecutors accused defense lawyers of ``whipping up a media frenzy'' that could taint the pool of prospective jurors, and contend that the disclosure violates state and U.S. bar association rules. Penalties for such violations vary greatly, from jail time in extreme cases to a judicial reprimand.
| I'd say that leaking sealed information in a terrorism case leans more to the extreme end. How 'bout a little jail time for the responsible mouthpiece? |
| Isn't a responsibility for a lawyer on the case to understand all the rules and orders? Would the defense allow a prosecutor to say something like that? I'm just asking. |
| Yet another example that demonstrates that the NYT is on the other side. |