Jensen's Case for Selective Prosecution
State Representative Scott Jensen has been charged with three Class E felonies and 1 unclassified misdemeanor.
During the same John Doe investigation, Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard obtained extensive testimony from Assembly Democratic Caucus staff members indicating that Assembly Democratic Leader Shirley Krug and her colleagues engaged in similar, and in some cases more egregious political activity than the activity alleged in the criminal complaint against Jensen.
Last week Blanchard filed a motion to prohibit Jensen from making arguments or presenting evidence regarding uncharged conduct by others. Blanchard believes that Jensen may use the evidence to show that he is being selectively prosecuted. Blanchard states that such a claim is a matter for a pre-trial hearing.
Blanchard repeatedly denied requests to release the John Doe testimony when the investigation was still underway. In April 2004, Blanchard wrote the court, “There is no compelling reason to risk potentially diminishing reputational interests of persons referred to in the John Doe transcripts that have not been charged with any crime."
In March of 2005, Blanchard said the investigation was closed and that he did not anticipate any further charges.
A comparison of excerpts from John Doe testimony given by Assembly Democratic Caucus staff begs the question: Now that Scott Jensen is the last man standing, whose reputation is Blanchard trying to protect, his own?
Read the the John Doe Testimony and summary of political activities below:
John Doe testimony
Summary of political activities
4 Comments:
There is one difference between Jensen and the ARC, and Krug and ADC - Krug and company gave up their power to the Madistan branch of the DPW, while Jensen had the "bad form" to not do what made Mike Ellis infamous.
I'm not sure that the road you would take us down leads to a place you want to go.
Has anyone asked John Gard about this "selective prosecution/everybody did it" course of action?
so grumps does this mean you endorse selective prosecution.
By this logic, if crime is widespread, no-one should be prosecuted unless everyone is prosecuted.
Would these "law and order" politicians endorse that approach for, say, home burglary, robbery or assault or financial crimes?
Perhaps if this defense is productive, it will set a precedent for other crimes and help criminals get off the hook.
Beyond that, there seems to be a similarity to Bush's approach on warrantless wiretapping. If he doesn't like a law or finds it inconvenient, he needn't follow it.
Post a Comment
<< Home