"Traficant makes his vendetta clear"
Editorial
Tribune Chronicle
Sunday, March 24, 2002
U.S. Rep. James A. Traficant Jr. consistently has told his constituents, the courts and — through the modern wonder of cable news channels — the whole country of the alleged government vendetta against him.
Now, after the government has provided more than 50 witnesses who testified to aspects of the 10-count indictment against the congressman, is Traficant’s opportunity to prove them wrong.
But from "boat schemes" to "salary kickbacks," what the government witnesses described do not look like a government vendetta but rather a congressman’s vendetta.
What’s more, a government vendetta is irrelevant unless it pertains to Traficant’s guilt or innocence. In a Jan. 29 ruling, U.S. District Judge Lesley Brooks Wells wrote:
"Any questions he chooses to ask, arguments he chooses to make, or evidence he chooses to seek to admit must be relevant to the question of his guilt or innocence, which includes the credibility of witnesses."
It appears the intent of Traficant’s defense will be to do just that — question the credibility of the government’s many witnesses.
However, it must be done to the same standards as would be expected of any other prosecutor or defendant. This includes complying with rules of evidence and — as we have written before — proper courtroom decorum.
Friday, Traficant showed up without the necessary witnesses after Wells had on Thursday dismissed the jury for the weekend. The purpose of Wells’ dismissal was to allow Traficant time to prove the admissibility of certain statements from two witnesses. The witnesses, however, were not in court Friday, and Traficant did not appear concerned in the least.
We find Friday’s debacle upsetting in that a day of court was wasted because of Traficant’s inability to follow the court’s procedure. Before leaving court Friday, Traficant said:
"Adieu to you. I apologize if I misinterpreted the orders of the court. I apologize. I misconstrued. I did have a witness here. I couldn’t have the other witnesses here — but that’s the way it goes."
His disregard for the time of the judge, the court employees, the prosecution and visitors to the trial was apparent.
That’s the way it goes.