Wilkes: Leave The Hookers out of It

[babylonsister]

:rofl:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004336.php

Wilkes: Leave The Hookers out of It
By Paul Kiel - October 1, 2007, 1:22PM

Will Brent Wilkes beat the wrap? Or has he said his last Boom Shaka Laka?

We'll soon find out. The trial for one of Duke Cunningham's favorite defense contractors is set to begin Wednesday, when Wilkes will try to convince a jury that the hundreds of thousands of dollars of gifts and payments that he gave Cunningham weren't bribes.

But Wilkes' lawyer Mark Geragos had a number of requests today before the trial gets started. Among them was a motion to preclude any evidence that Wilkes had provided Cunningham with prostitutes.

Geragos reasons that prosecutors are just out to dirty his client:

There is little probative value in presenting the testimony of professional call girls, persons admittedly in the business of regularly breaking the law and making a living through illegal vice. The real purpose of presenting that evidence is to sully Mr. Wilkes in the eyes of the jury. Mr. Wilkes was married during the alleged incident, and the government seeks to drag out a dirty story of adultery and vice, not to prove any element of the alleged offenses.

Geragos points to the prosecutors' dirty habit of regularly dropping references to the prostitutes in their filings (like here and here) to prove that they're out to sully Wilkes. He argues that any mention of the call girls and especially one prostitutes' scheduling book should be barred at trial because it would lead the jury to develop a "negative and prejudiced view of Mr. Wilkes’s moral character."

The issue is expected to be discussed at a hearing later today.

[Forkboy]

1. I hear that every weekend.

:evilgrin:

[babylonsister]

7. Now I understand your hobby in your profile!

:evilgrin:

[Forkboy]

10. I might have taken it past the hobby point by now.

I think it's becoming a career. :D

[Lasher]

2. Hmm, wonder why Wilkes is no longer married?

Maybe they should put his ex-wife on the stand so she can clear all that up for us.

[babylonsister]

3. Molly Ivins was prescient! She wrote about Hookergate, and told us Wilkes

was one to watch:

http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2211

[Warpy]

4. Wilkes will be lucky if the hookers represent his only conviction

He was running an RNC money laundering operation, with contracts from the DOD laundering taxpayer money through dummy corporations which produced nothing more than payoffs, kickbacks, and generous campaign and PAC contributions.

[babylonsister]

5. Think how long it's taken to get this far with Hookergate. I'm just glad

we're finally here, and I bet it's going to get ugly.

[Captain Hilts]

6. Okay, I'll ask: Girls or Gannon hookers? nt

[babylonsister]

8. Hmmm, that could be why Wilkes' attorney doesn't want to talk about it?

Or, a little bit of both?!

[Captain Hilts]

9. Girls or Gannons, America wants to know. nt

[cascadiance]

11. And if that doesn't do it, they should block their testimony for national security reasons!

Wouldn't want the hookers to talk about all of those nasty secrets they know that could put our country at risk now!

Gotta have that gray mail defense stop this trial, right Geragos? Whoever's paying you to defend Wilkes (and rescue his bankrupt butt from the public defender) is counting on it!

[tanyev]

12. Poor Brent. Maybe he shouldn't have brought the hookers into it.

[Joanne98]

13. HAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

[robinlynne]

14. moral what?