Wells will probably deny sanction bid, experts say
Traficant is probably trying to get himself held in contempt to gain the jury's sympathy, said one analyst.
By DAVID SKOLNICK
VINDICATOR POLITICS WRITER
CLEVELAND -- Two legal experts say it is unlikely that the judge in U.S. Rep. James A. Traficant Jr.'s corruption trial will grant a federal prosecutors' motion to sanction the congressman for his conduct in court.
Also, the two say U.S. District Court Judge Lesley Brooks Wells is giving Traficant, a nonlawyer defending himself, a lot more leeway compared with attorneys who normally practice in front of her -- and it has nothing to do with the fact that he is a congressman.
"I think she's giving this guy much more latitude than she would anybody else just because he is" defending himself, said Roger M. Synenberg, a prominent Cleveland defense attorney and a former assistant U.S. attorney. "While the fact that he's a congressman in some fashion requires that he get more respect, I don't know that this congressman at this point is getting any special treatment."
Federal prosecutors filed a motion asking Judge Wells to sanction Traficant for his actions in court including attempts to purposefully place inadmissible evidence before the jury, interrupting, talking over and yelling at the judge, standing over and yelling at the prosecutors and directing disrespectful comments toward the court. The motion also says Traficant's conduct would not be tolerated if it were committed by an attorney.
"The government probably feels [Traficant's conduct] is going too far, and they just want to draw her attention back to what's going on," Synenberg said. "By filing the motion, it's something she has to deal with one way or the other."
Seeking sympathy? Lewis R. Katz, a 37-year law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said Traficant is probably trying to get himself held in contempt of court to gain the sympathy of the jury.
"I assume he's looking for it so he can tell the jury that he is the victim of a grand government conspiracy," Katz said.
It's not that easy to be sanctioned by a federal judge, but that is because trained attorneys know what line they should not cross, Synenberg said. The same cannot be said for Traficant.
"It's a rare occurrence when someone will actually get sanctioned because it's a rare occurrence when it calls for it," he said.
"No lawyer would probably say what Traficant's been saying under the circumstances. It's not like it is in the movies. For the most part, all lawyers know there's another day to fight. There are occasions when myself and other lawyers, in the interest of standing up for our clients when we think we're really getting a bad deal, might get close to the line. But it's a rare occurrence when we cross it."
By not sanctioning Traficant, Judge Wells is giving him "passive encouragement" to continue his defense style, Katz said.
"I think judges inadvertently give people defending themselves more leeway," he said. "They are allowed to push the envelope further, but not too far."
History's lesson: Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Morford, the lead federal prosecutor, probably doesn't want to make the mistakes made by federal prosecutors who handled Traficant's 1983 corruption trial, Synenberg said.
During that trial, federal prosecutors, confident they had Traficant convicted, did not attempt to have the judge rein him in, Synenberg said. Traficant acted as his own lawyer during that trial too.
"From Morford's position, it probably appears that this guy is going too far, and rather than look back and wish he did it, he's going to do it now," he said of the motion to sanction.
But it shouldn't have much of an impact on Traficant's case whether the judge sanctions him, Synenberg said.
"It sounds like [Traficant's] getting his teeth kicked in. I bet he wishes he had a lawyer now. "