Lawyers: Help me out here re: Kwame Kilpatrick

[LuckyTheDog]

If you sign an agreement to hide damaging evidence that could lead to a felony prosecution and also agree to a quid pro quo (such as dropping an appeal that could be expensive for the plaintiffs in a lswsuit)... wouldn't those actions be considered to be obstruction of justice?

Couldn't there also be charges of conspiracy involved -- not to mention perjury?

And couldn't the plaintiffs who made the deal be charged with extortion?

[noonwitch]

1. I'm not a lawyer, but

As far as the text messages go-the Detroit Free Press filed for copies under the Freedom of Information act. At least one of the phones used was a city-owned phone (Ms. Beatty's), therefore it falls under that act. Whatever the deal the lawyers reached no longer matters because the Free Press broke the story after winning access to the texts in court, as far as that side of it goes.

As far as proving a criminal case-my personal belief is in line with Jack Lessenbury's column two weeks ago. Treat him like Agnew-show him what you got, get him to resign in exchange for not pressing charges, but then make all the evidence public. A trial would be expensive and distracting from the city's business. Ms. Beatty did the right thing by resigning, now Kwame needs to be a man and do the same.

[LuckyTheDog]

2. I think you missed my point

The point was not that the Free Press did anything wrong. The point is that Kilpatrick signed a secret agreement for the purpose of hiding evidence. That, too me, sounds like Kilpatick committed obstruction and conspiracy.

[MichiganVote]

3. He's toast.