Testimony from a witness for Norm Coleman was stricken from the court record today when the three judges in Minnesota’s election contest trial agreed with Al Franken’s side that Coleman lawyers should not have shared notes with her during a break. As seen and reported on The UpTake, it was a dramatic blow for Coleman’s effort to upend his Democratic opponent’s 225-vote recount victory in the fight for Coleman’s old U.S. Senate seat, especially for a team still smarting from other smackdowns Tuesday.
UPDATE: The judges changed their minds and un-struck the testimony (pdf). (They all three signed the order – does that make three un-strikes?)
Minneapolis election worker Pamela Howell, a Republican, was on the witness stand today to attest to polling place errors that could have led to double-counting of votes. She was under cross-examination by the Franken side when the court adjourned for a short break — during which Coleman attorney Joe Friedberg gave her notes she’d prepared earlier.
When court resumed, Franken attorney David Lillehaug first demanded to know what the document was and the reason it hadn’t been shared with his team — and then demanded that the court strike Howell’s testimony from the record.
Coleman attorney Tony Trimble’s explanation of the incident as a simple mistake didn’t satisfy the judges. Instead, they had Howell leave the stand having left not an official ripple on the proceedings — though her brief appearance had crashed like an unwelcome wave across the former Republican senator’s deck.
In other court action today, Coleman attorneys argued that a St. Louis County absentee ballot envelope rife with X marks where voter information belonged should not have been counted. The two sides clashed over whether Coleman could solicit evidence from far-flung counties via e-mail. And Cindy Reichert, the Minneapolis elections manager, took the stand later in the day to be quizzed about 133 ballots that went from the city’s Ward 3, Precinct 3. She also said some absentee ballots that may contain registration forms inside remain unopened. Her testimony resumes Thursday.
On Tuesday, Coleman continued to lose ground in his effort to have some ballots counted and others not. And at the end of the day, the court issued an order (pdf) rejecting his request for an injunction to stop state officials from blotting out marks linking 933 ballots tallied in the recount, some of which Coleman now contends aren’t legal.
The interminable quality of the back-and-forth legal battle, now in its fifth week, isn’t lost on the combatants closest to the conflict. An end-of-day interview by The UpTake’s Noah Kunin with East Coast-based Franken attorney Marc Elias included this exchange, after Coleman attorney Joel Friedberg, a Minnesotan, passed the pair in a courthouse corridor:
KUNIN (relaying a question from Elias’ wife, who Elias has said is following the trial via The UpTake “religiously”): When are you coming home, or is that too speculative?
ELIAS: You should have asked Mr. Friedberg. (Turning to shout down the hall) When am I going home?
FRIEDBERG (in an off-mike remark, as relayed by Kunin): The sooner, the better.














5 Comments »
Comment posted February 26, 2009 @ 12:23 am
I bet Coleman uses the exclusion of that witness as part of an appeal.
Comment posted February 26, 2009 @ 10:19 am
According to the Star Tribune all that the witness testified to was thatshe heard another say duplicate ballots were not marked and numbered as duplicates before they were put into the ballot counter.
In this case, it seems rather easy to see if the total number of ballots counted agrees with the number of voters participating in the election. This would tell you if some ballots were counted twice.
Comment posted February 26, 2009 @ 11:00 am
Robert Hunter, thanks for your comment. I’ll change the way I phrased the line about her testimony. I was relying on the AP story that’s linked in the post which described her as “the only witness to claim seeing errors that may have given some people two votes” — which is slightly different than what I wrote. I missed seeing most of her actual testimony yesterday though The UpTake has it archived (labeled parts 1 and 2 from yesterday, I believe).
Comment posted February 26, 2009 @ 11:28 am
Maybe the court had the same thought I did, since it reversed itself under grounds that Franken now has had time to examine the document and plan cross-examination. This is a crucial witness for Coleman, because if all Coleman has are numbers, other explanations are possible, and he needs to show the double-counting theory is more likely than not.
Of course, it Coleman can prove it, then Franken gets to show numerical discrepancies in Coleman precincts. Considering how evidence of counties varying in how tightly they followed procedures indicates Franken was the candidate who got hurt, double-counting might have helped Coleman.
Comment posted February 28, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
Just exactly how much Courtroom chicanery are the trio of Judges going to allow before they come-down hard on what the Coleman Team has been pulling-off in their Courtroom? I’d like to see them become just angry enough with the “phony-baloney witnesses” and the “bought and paid for” testimony and the flagrant violations of Law committed by the Coleman Team to start handing-down some fines, penalties, sanctions and more.
The Coleman Team has conducted business in an arrogant and self-righteous manner right out of the gate. They have done, requested or attempted to do otherwise than what the Supreme Court has already ruled upon; earning them Sanctions from this Court which now finds them in nothing short of withholding evidence, witness tampering, collusion and Contempt of Court.
Team Coleman and Coleman, himself, keep harping about wanting Minnesota to have another Election. There will be another Election, … in 2012! But, after trying to lie and cheat your way through this Contest; I doubt you get enough signatures on your paperwork petition unless you count each one of them, … twice!
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment