As the Vatican continues to demonstrate its sense that it is above the law when it comes to the sexual abuse of children (see the prior post), in Richmond, Virginia, the criminal trial of Bob and Maureen McDonnell similarly shows the nasty reality of GOP "family values": sham marriages, unbridled greed, back stabbing, throwing one's spouse under the proverbial bus, and levels of dysfunction that are off the charts. Perhaps I should not be surprised given what went on in the strong Republican neighborhood I lived in during the closeted period of my life. Outwardly, everything was perfection with perfectly maintained homes and yards, but behind closed doors, some husbands beat their wives, many marriages were strained at best, and at least one husband was recently caught by one of his children having sex with a woman not much older than his children. A piece in Talking Points Memo looks at the culmination of all of this in Bob McDonnell's "crazy wife" legal defense scheme. Here are highlights:
Over five weeks of testimony, jurors have heard a barrage of details about the McDonnells’ finances and about their interactions with a wealthy Virginia businessman, Jonnie Williams, from whom the couple is accused of taking $177,000 worth of gifts and loans in exchange for lending the credibility of the governor’s office to Williams’ dietary supplements company.
But without a doubt, the most engrossing aspect of the trial has been the revelations about the McDonnells’ marriage. In testimony, the governor painted a picture of his marriage veering so far into soap opera territory that pundits began referring to it as the “crazy wife” defense. Legal experts told TPM that was an unprecedented strategy to deploy in such a high-profile criminal case.
When the former governor the took the stand, he cast his wife as a mercurial thorn in his side — not to mention that of the entire Executive Mansion staff. Under questioning by the defense, various other witnesses described Maureen McDonnell as a hoarder, "diva-ish" and "pathologically incapable of taking any kind of responsibility." One former aide testified that the governor was "in denial about Mrs. McDonnell’s mental capacity."
Defense attorneys are hoping that all this testimony proves to jurors that communication between the McDonnells was too strained for them to have been able to conspire together to promote Williams’ company.
Barbara “Biz” Van Gelder, a criminal defense attorney with Dickstein Shapiro, said it’s not unusual in a criminal case for one spouse to claim that he or she wasn’t aware of what the other spouse was doing, particularly in regards to finances. For example, a couple may share a joint account that just one spouse manages.
But “this is much different. This is saying not that they do that portion of the shared work, but this is like, ‘I’m not even talking to them so I don’t know,’” she told TPM.
Julie Rose O’Sullivan, a law professor at Georgetown and a former federal prosecutor, agreed that the McDonnell defense’s “crazy wife” theory was a departure from cases she’s seen.
“The more that he describes his wife as crazy, then it begs the question of well, if your wife was crazy, why didn’t you stop her?” he told TPM. “Why didn’t you shut her down? Like many defenses, this one is also a two-edged sword.”
Certain gifts that McDonnell himself received from the wealthy businessman, such as golfing trips and a ride in Williams’ Ferrari, don't quite fit that narrative (The Washington Post has an excellent graphic visualizing all the luxury goods, vacations and loans given to each member of the McDonnell family for reference). In those cases, McDonnell acknowledged that he shouldn’t have accepted the gifts but argued that Williams’ largess never earned him more than basic constituent access to the governor’s office.
So how might the "crazy wife" defense shake out once the trial goes to jury?
Cowan believes that the broken marriage story may not be enough to convince a jury that the McDonnells were unable to conspire to promote Williams' company.
"If at the end of the day the jury says, you did enough, you knew enough, then this is really not only a trainwreck for a political career, it’s also an incredible trainwreck to publicly display all of this for naught," Van Gelder said.
No comments:
Post a Comment