General Discussion

struggle4progress

(118,331 posts) Wed Mar 25, 2015, 11:34 PM Mar 2015

Assange™ lawyers demand Swedish prosecution files or no London interview

Our client is happy to stew in his own juice some more
24 Mar 2015 at 14:56
Alexander J Martin

Lawyers for Julian Assange™ have said they want access to all files held by Swedish prosecutors on their client before they can grant an interview with him.

According to an AFP report, Assange's defence is to demand access to the Swedish officials' "förundersökningsprotokoll", a dossier normally only made available to the defence when the investigation phase has been completed, before a trial indictment "stämningsansökan" is filed ...

Mark Klamberg, a legal expert at Uppsala University, told the Reg today: "The Swedish prosecutor wants to question Assange before they complete the investigation – when this is done, Assange has the right to access the prosecution files."

Baltasar Garzón, head of Assange's legal team,... stated that the Assange defence team had yet to respond to the Swedish authorities' request for an interrogation to take place at the embassy ...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/24/assange_team_throws_up_conditions_to_swedish_prosecution/

15 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Assange™ lawyers demand Swedish prosecution files or no London interview (Original Post) struggle4progress Mar 2015 OP

Assange to remain at London embassy until US WikiLeaks investigation ends struggle4progress Mar 2015 #1

There's two big giant holes in that theory. jeff47 Mar 2015 #15

I thought Assange couldn't wait for the interview... tammywammy Mar 2015 #2

Nice try, but I was told here that Assange really really wants this interview. zappaman Mar 2015 #3

Wow. And all of a sudden, the goalposts shift. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #4

And in what justice system does that ever happen? I guess Assange was just blowing hot air pnwmom Mar 2015 #5

Any defense lawyer worth anything is going to try to get as much Zorra Mar 2015 #6

Oh, it's a case full of knotty legal conundrums and unanswered questions, to be sure: struggle4progress Mar 2015 #12

Next week's demand: Free cable!! Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #7

"You owe me beer! and travel money! and many experiences!" struggle4progress Mar 2015 #13

How dare they demand discovery. Luminous Animal Mar 2015 #8

Discovery does not apply to criminal cases except under very limited circumstances hack89 Mar 2015 #14

This whole thing stinks like imthevicar Mar 2015 #9

I thought he wanted to do this interview? joshcryer Mar 2015 #10

But..but..he wanted to get this interview behind him once & for all. Right? Tarheel_Dem Mar 2015 #11

struggle4progress

(118,331 posts)

1. Assange to remain at London embassy until US WikiLeaks investigation ends

Reply to struggle4progress (Original post)

Wed Mar 25, 2015, 11:38 PM

Mar 2015

23 Mar, 2015
by Katy Scott in NEWS

... The 43-year-old Australian refused to be questioned in Sweden, arguing that he risked being extradited to the US. A US lawyer representing Assange and WikiLeaks, Michael Ratner, told Reuters that if Assange leaves the embassy, he would likely be arrested by British authorities and sent to America to face possible trial. “Even were the Swedish case to be disposed of, the UK would arrest Assange upon leaving the embassy for claimed violations of bail conditions or something similar,” he reportedly said. Prosecutor Marianne Ny agreed for Assange to be questioned in the embassy, as by August the statute of limitations on some of the alleged crimes would become effective ...

http://www.australiantimes.co.uk/assange-to-remain-at-london-embassy-until-us-wikileaks-investigation-ends/

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

15. There's two big giant holes in that theory.

Reply to struggle4progress (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:39 AM

Mar 2015

One is that the UK, our closest ally and with a nearly identical legal system, would be less willing to extradite than Sweden, a country far less friendly to the US and significantly different laws.

Second, Assange hasn't actually broken any US laws. It is illegal to leak classified information if you have legal access to that information. If someone leaks classified information to you, you are free to publish it.

tammywammy

(26,582 posts)

2. I thought Assange couldn't wait for the interview...

Reply to struggle4progress (Original post)

Wed Mar 25, 2015, 11:40 PM

Mar 2015

From your link:

Garzón stated that the Assange defence team had yet to respond to the Swedish authorities' request for an interrogation to take place at the embassy.

"Of course we will agree to the interrogation, but they have to guarantee minimum prerequisites," he said, stressing that giving the defence access to the investigation files was "simply the minimum rights of any person subjected to a judicial process".

The request for full disclosure of the case file is non-standard procedure under Swedish law at this stage and has drawn criticism that Assange is actually seeking to avoid the interview. Klamberg, an expert in international law, told the Reg that Baltasar Garzón's request "lacks legal basis at this stage of the proceedings.

zappaman

(20,606 posts)

3. Nice try, but I was told here that Assange really really wants this interview.

Reply to struggle4progress (Original post)

Wed Mar 25, 2015, 11:41 PM

Mar 2015

So there!

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)

4. Wow. And all of a sudden, the goalposts shift.

Reply to struggle4progress (Original post)

Wed Mar 25, 2015, 11:57 PM

Mar 2015

"Why won't the Swedish prosecutor just interview him in the Embassy?" we have been asked ad nauseam. Well now the prosecutor offers to do just that, and now Assange is worming his way out of it.

pnwmom

(108,990 posts)

5. And in what justice system does that ever happen? I guess Assange was just blowing hot air

Reply to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 12:15 AM

Mar 2015

about being willing to meet with the prosecutors in England.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)

6. Any defense lawyer worth anything is going to try to get as much

Reply to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 12:38 AM

Mar 2015

advance disclosure in a discovery process as they can.

The unusual circumstances of this case are pretty much new ground for everyone involved.

Garzon is going to get everything he can possibly get before agreeing to let Julian be interviewed.

struggle4progress

(118,331 posts)

12. Oh, it's a case full of knotty legal conundrums and unanswered questions, to be sure:

Reply to Zorra (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 04:18 AM

Mar 2015

Why, for example, did the Swedish prosecutor decide to investigate whether Assange had raped a woman who complained to police he had sex with her while she was unconscious?

And why didn't the investigation end when Assange left Sweden immediately after the prosecutor and Assange's attorney had arranged a time for Assange to be interviewed by the prosecutor?

Why are the London police constantly watching the embassy where Assange has lived ever since he jumped bail after repeatedly losing his deportation case at every level in the UK courts?

Why didn't any media outlets report Assange's election as an Australian senator?

Don't all police departments give suspects copies of the investigative files before interviewing?

And how many different lawyers does Assange really need?

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)

7. Next week's demand: Free cable!!

Reply to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 12:39 AM

Mar 2015

What the hell does giving an interview have with obtaining the prosecutors' files?
Unless he wants to get his story straight first!!!

struggle4progress

(118,331 posts)

13. "You owe me beer! and travel money! and many experiences!"

Reply to Major Hogwash (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 05:31 AM

Mar 2015

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)

8. How dare they demand discovery.

Reply to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 01:10 AM

Mar 2015

hack89

(39,171 posts)

14. Discovery does not apply to criminal cases except under very limited circumstances

Reply to Luminous Animal (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 07:37 AM

Mar 2015

Under Common Law, there was no discovery in criminal cases. As of the early 2000s, in federal and many state criminal prosecutions, only limited discovery is permissible, unlike the full disclosure of information available in civil actions. Limited discovery prevents the possible intimidation of prosecution witnesses and the increased likelihood of perjury that might result from unabridged disclosure. The obligation of the prosecutor to prove the case Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, the possibility of an unconstitutional infringement upon a defendant's right against self-incrimination, and violations of the attorney-client privilege pursuant to a client's Right to Counsel also hinder complete discovery. A defendant who requests particular documents from the government may be required to submit items of a similar nature to the government upon its request for discovery. The disclosure of false evidence or the failure of the prosecution to disclose documents that are beneficial to the defense can result in a denial of Due Process of Law.

The federal Jencks Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 3500 [1957]) entitles a defendant to obtain access to prosecution documents necessary to impeach the testimony of a prosecution witness by showing that the witness had made earlier statements that contradict present testimony. Theoretically, the defense cannot receive the statements until the witness has finished testimony on direct examination, but, in practice, such statements are usually available before then. Many states have similar disclosure rules.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/discovery

And lets not forget that Sweden is not a common law country - they may have completely different procedures.