Trials & Litigation
Cross-Examination Gone Bad: Angry Witness Accuses Lawyer of Dealing Drugs
Posted Aug 21, 2008 6:44 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A Michigan defense lawyer’s cross-examination of an informant went awry yesterday when the witness became angry and said the lawyer questioning him had sold drugs.
Informant David Maki’s outburst came after defense lawyer Tim Barkovic called him a liar and a snitch, the Detroit Free Press reports. Maki “got angry and said defiantly on the stand that Barkovic had sold drugs, after which the judge dismissed the jury,” the story reports.
Barkovic is representing a co-defendant accused of felony murder in a store robbery that left one clerk dead and another injured. Jurors were instructed to ignore the comments by Maki.
Judge Donald Miller of Macomb Circuit Court denied the co-defendant’s request for a new lawyer, the Detroit News reports.
Barkovic says the charge of selling drugs is ridiculous and sought a mistrial. Miller also denied that request, the Detroit Free Press reports in an updated account.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
R
Aug 22, 2008 9:27 AM CST
I hate it when that happens.
Sounds like attorney Barkovic’s client has a “Get Out of Jail” card now. Either the jury finds the informant unbelievable - based on the informant’s ridiculous charge of Barkovic selling drugs - or, if his client is found guilty, Barkovic probably has pretty good grounds for an appeal based on the denial of a mistrial.
Flag this comment
M
Aug 22, 2008 10:19 AM CST
Yeah, I’m not sure how that is “Cross Exam Gone Bad”. Unless the informant has photos or some other evidence to support his claim, sounds like the attorney won this round.
Flag this comment
Jonathan Edwards
Aug 22, 2008 11:17 AM CST
if that shows up on Court TV, might be fun to watch!
Flag this comment
Mike
Aug 22, 2008 12:10 PM CST
Just goes to show, snitches will falsely accuse and lie if they believe that it’s to their benefit.
Flag this comment
Louis Schepp
Aug 22, 2008 1:03 PM CST
And why was the following, from the newspapers story, left out of the ABA version of the story?
“Barkovic, who previously has represented the informant , David Maki, as a defense lawyer, attacked the informant’s credibility, calling him a liar.”
Seems to me that this fact puts a different spin on the story.
Flag this comment
Kevin Nicus
Aug 22, 2008 1:07 PM CST
You know what’s missing here? A comment from Ellen Barshevsky about how nobody would deal drugs if they hadn’t been oppressed by white male partners in big law firms.
Flag this comment
aon
Aug 22, 2008 3:05 PM CST
There was a chubby lawyer named Ron
Who told a client let’s get it on
She agreed with great speed
To play the part of a steed
Now Ron is a poorer Don Juan
Flag this comment
anon
Aug 22, 2008 3:07 PM CST
There was a witness who was not very happy
On the stand he became very snappy
He played the part of a squealer
Called the lawyer a dealer
Leaving counsel feeling quite crappy
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.