Opening Statements ---- State v. Jensen

(Today I observed jury selection and opening statements in the State v. Jensen. I will be observing as much of othe trial as possible during the next few weeks.)


Assistant Attorney General Roy Korte delivered the prosecution’s opening statement which, like the case itself, made little sense and went on way too long.

Korte said the case was about duty, deception and benefit, but he did not elaborate on those points. Rather he tried to explain terms like public financing, political action committees and conduit contributions, and he threw acronym after acronym at a beleaguered jury who had already endured hours of voir dire testimony and jury instructions interrupted by a fire alarm.

It was apparent that Mr. Korte knows what all the terms mean, but doesn’t have a clue how things work in the Capital. Nor does he understand the capacity of the average person to absorb this kind of information. If he did, he never would have tried to explain it to a jury.

The state has argued that the issues in this case are clear and simple, yet their opening remarks illustrate what the defense has said all along: the issues are very unclear and quite confusing.

Defense Attorney Stephen Meyer did a good job highlighting how confusing and complicated the rules or lack of rules were that governed the behavior of state legislators and capital staff, and he said it was Scott Jensen who took the lead in reforming the system after the 2000 election cycle.

He talked about how Jensen met with Assembly Chief Clerk John Scocos in January of 2001 and asked him to do a top-down review of the entire legislative staff. He specifically wanted to upgrade and professionalize the staff, to implement a timesheet system and to rewrite the employee handbook that had not been updated in 28 years.

Meyer said the handbook “was replete with contradictions.” For example on page 3 it said that political activity was not permitted, yet the job description of Caucus Director and staff was “to meet with legislative leaders and state party officials to plan statewide political strategy.”

Meyer began his opening statement by admitting that when he began working on this case, he had no idea how things really worked in the legislature. He talked about how hard Scott Jensen and other legislators work not only to get elected but to serve their constituents and he said that campaigns and constituent service are inextricably linked.

Meyer told the jury that Scott Jensen and his colleagues often work very long hours and are not highly compensated for their work. Finally, Meyer said: Scott Jensen has never received anything of benefit for himself or his family; he did not delay or promote legislation for money; he did not alter documents or direct people to lie or hinder the state, and he has not taken anything of value from lobbyists.

So why are we here?