If Billy Martin and Tom Kelly frame their argument on constitutional grounds in terms of defective right to counsel advisement and defective record thereof; in conjunction with an argument that there is no required factual basis for the finding of guilt pursuant to the plea; this new affidavit is irrelevant and, for the most part, meaningless. A good attorney, and Billy is very good, can even turn this to Craig's advantage. That certainly doesn't mean Craig will prevail, but this affidavit is definitive of nothing; the prosecutor better have more than just that.

I'm with the first dl. Not "profuse."

I agree with the two dl's that "Thank you for your cooperation" was not "...profusely thanking him..."

Given TPM's high standards, I would like to see a response from Greg Sargent in which he explains why he thought such a simple line was profuse.

Any thanks whatsoever to a prosecutor who just lightened my wallet by $575 and blotted my record with a public guilty record is, in my humble estimation very profuse, if not absolutely ludicrous.
Can you say "ass kissing?"

Not too pile on Greg, but I too was disappointed to see the word "profusely" used to describe Craig's thank you to the D.A. I also question how "juicy" the details in the affidavit are, as well.

I agree that writers should be wary of falling into the habit of using that kind of hyperbole lest they become discredited.

Profusely? Don't get too excited now.

Is it me, or is Craig's handwriting really, really gay?

Let me join the chorus: 'profusely' and 'juicy' are not at all accurate here.

not zayen wrote on September 24, 2007 9:55 PM:
"Is it me, or is Craig's handwriting really, really gay?"

His handwriting is not gay; it never has been gay; and it loves its wife.

Some of you guys are really, really splitting hairs over Sargent using the word "profusely" - maybe it's not the best word choice, but come on, who the heck sends a handwritten note with thanks to a prosecutor for convicting them? Any "thanks" in this situation is abundant, no? If I were Craig, I would have sent a check and that'd been it for me.

You're focusing too much on a single word and letting the meaning of the situation go past you.

Lighten up, just a little, huh?

I agree that "profusely" was a ridiculous choice of words. "Expressly" would have been accurate and placed emphasis on the fact that Craig actually thanked the prosecutor. I, too, expect much higher standards of reporting from TPM.

I'd say it's more reflex than sucking up. I've found myself saying "thank you" after getting a speeding ticket, just because I reflexively say "thank you" when somebody hands me something.

Craig's handwritten note is legally meaningless, although magster's comment (8:39pm) is priceless (in the sense of being wickedly funny).

The prosecutor behaved professionally, as his own cover letter (sent to Craig with the proposed plea motion) made very clear even before his affidavit. In that cover letter, the prosecutor volunteered to secure a two-week continuance of Craig's July 25th arraignment date so that Craig could review the proposed plea motion with counsel.

Craig wasn't "panicked" or "railroaded."

On the other hand, the court's acceptance of his guilty plea undoubtedly violated Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.02 (as made binding on mail-in pleas by Rule 15.03). The motion drafted by the prosecutor failed to follow the prescribed forms of either Appendix B or Appendix C to Rule 15. And neither the prosecution, court staff, nor judge ensured that Craig had filled out a Form 11, which would have ensured that his waiver of his rights to counsel was genuinely well informed and voluntary.

On the other (third) hand, that violation -- the failure to confirm in connection with the acceptance of Craig's plea that he was knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to counsel at all stages of his prosecution (including the negotiation of his plea agreement) -- has not been alleged or proved to have actually prejudiced Craig.

On the other (fourth) hand, if Craig had indeed had counsel, such counsel almost certainly could have negotiated a better plea bargain -- specifically, a "deferred prosecution" under which the charged against Craig would have been put on hold for a year, and then dismissed if he kept his nose, hands, and feet out of other toilet stalls -- instead of a guilty plea to the lesser charge or disorderly conduct.

No one else seems to have mentioned one thing that jumped right out at me from the prosecutor's affidavit.

In his request to withdraw his guilty plea, Craig stated multiple times (as one salient aspect of his supposedly hasty and panicked guilty plea) that at no time (during the almost two months when he was "hastily" weighing whether to plead out) did he consult an attorney.

But the prosecutor now affirms that in one conversation in July Craig asked him for a copy of the plea bargain so that Craig could review it with his attorney.

That sounds to me like Craig perjured himself while asking for the withdrawal.

Somebody was saying on TV last week that "The Dems are loving this", and as a Democrat-leaning Independent, I have to say ...

I really don't care.

Gay, not gay, whatever. I think the hypocrisy of the GOP turning on him was ridiculous (Vague insinuations of gay sex that never happened, Bad. Actually going to and paying a Prostitute, that they're fine with? Excuse me?), but if a 60 year old Senator says that he's not gay, I really don't care if he's lying.

Jonnan