Former VA Gov. Bob McDonnell charged w/ 14 felony counts

[carlfense]

In case we lose sight of what a big political scandal looks like . . . here's Bob McDonnell to remind us:

Former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell and his wife Maureen were charged Tuesday with illegally accepting gifts, luxury vacations and large loans from a wealthy Richmond-area businessman who sought special treatment from state government.

 

Authorities alleged that McDonnell and his wife received gifts from executive Jonnie R. Williams again and again, lodging near constant requests for money, clothes, trips, golf accessories and private plane rides.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/former-va-gov-mcdonnell-and-wife-charged-in-gifts-case/2014/01/21/1ed704d2-82cb-11e3-9dd4-e7278db80d86_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

[TGHusker]

What pol try to get away with when we see time after time - it catches up to them. (Quiet:Conspiracy theorists will say: they got Christi and now McDonnell - 2 potential presidential candidates - Hilary is behind it or maybe from the right - Ted Cruz)

They are trapped by their own doing. Christi may come out of it legally but he has been tarnished. We'll see if he can polish himself up or not. McDonnell appears to be toast.

[StPaulHusker]

He denies everything so we're good here. Nothing to see.

[rawhide]

For those of us unversed in the legal system; when a witness is offered immunity from prosecution for his/her testimony, can that testimony be called into question??

 

I do understand the 5th Amendment but need further elucidation.

[carlfense]

For those of us unversed in the legal system; when a witness is offered immunity from prosecution for his/her testimony, can that testimony be called into question??

I'm not quite sure what you're asking but I'll take a shot. If a witness is given immunity in exchange for testifying the adverse party can (and usually will) raise the issue to attack the credibility of the witness.

[rawhide]

Is it then kinda of a he said; she said thing then or does there need to be corroborating evidence? Or a smoking hammer so to speak

[carlfense]

Is it then kinda of a he said; she said thing then or does there need to be corroborating evidence? Or a smoking hammer so to speak

From a legal standpoint corroborating evidence is not strictly necessary. The jury (or judge) can evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and decide who is more trustworthy/honest/forthright/etc.

 

That said, from a common sense standpoint the more corroborating evidence the better the chance that the jury/judge will believe your witness.

[rawhide]

I've sat on 2 jury trials. 1 a DUI and the other a DUI checkpoint. The checkpoint I think was heading to a higher court after we found them guilty. That was back in the 80's been lucky since.

 

And now since my son is involved in the legal system in the same jurisdiction I doubt many defense attorneys would want me on the jury.

[carlfense]

And now since my son is involved in the legal system in the same jurisdiction I doubt many defense attorneys would want me on the jury.

Right. I don't have to worry about jury duty either . . . haha.

[strigori]

Is it then kinda of a he said; she said thing then or does there need to be corroborating evidence? Or a smoking hammer so to speak

From a legal standpoint corroborating evidence is not strictly necessary. The jury (or judge) can evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and decide who is more trustworthy/honest/forthright/etc.

 

That said, from a common sense standpoint the more corroborating evidence the better the chance that the jury/judge will believe your witness.

in this case what they received really is not in question. Other than a 'gift' became a 'loan' once it was found out. Its going to amount to what 'access' and 'favors' were given in exchange for the 'loans' watches, shopping sprees and trips. The defense is amounting to "Yeah, he gave me all this expensive stuff because he was a good guy, not for anything I could do to help his business"