Google Answers Logo
View Question
 
Q: John Poindexter's conviction for lying to congress during IRAN/CONTRA ( Answered 5 out of 5 stars,   1 Comment )
Question  
Subject: John Poindexter's conviction for lying to congress during IRAN/CONTRA
Category: Reference, Education and News > Current Events
Asked by: oldcurmudgeon-ga
List Price: $20.00
Posted: 16 Aug 2003 20:29 PDT
Expires: 15 Sep 2003 20:29 PDT
Question ID: 245537
John Poindexter was convicted of lying to congress during the
IRAN/CONTRA scandal in the Reagan administration.  Nearly every
mention of his conviction in the press repeats the assertion that
"...it was reversed on appeal."  I believe this is untrue.  There was
a question whether congress granted immunity to Ollie North and
Poindexter for their testimony and it is true that no jail time was
ever served.  Google cannot affirm or deny for me thus far whether
there was an appeal - much less it's results.  Can your "...more than
500 carefully screened researchers..." find an answer for me?
Answer  
Subject: Re: John Poindexter's conviction for lying to congress during IRAN/CONTRA
Answered By: juggler-ga on 17 Aug 2003 12:22 PDT
Rated:5 out of 5 stars
 
Hello.

John Poindexter's conviction was indeed reversed on appeal.


From CSMonitor.com:

'Poindexter, like Oliver North, who reported to him, was convicted in
federal district court of lying to Congress and of obstruction.The
conviction was overturned on technical grounds by an appeals court
majority of two Reagan-appointed judges, Douglas Ginsburg and David
Sentelle, over the vigorous dissent of Carter-appointed judge Abner
Mikva.'
source: Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1129/p11s01-coop.html

From the Iran-Contra report of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh:

'The Appeal
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 decision on November 15, 1991, reversed
Poindexter's convictions on the grounds that his trial was
impermissibly tainted by his immunized congressional testimony. The
Poindexter ruling was based on the appeals court decision in the North
case, which extended the protections of the use immunity statute to
prohibit use of any witness whose testimony has been refreshed or
shaped in any way by the defendant's immunized testimony. In his
dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Abner Mikva noted that the majority
ruling "tells future defendants that all they need to evade
responsibility [to testify at trial] is a well timed case of amnesia."
...
 U.S. v. Poindexter, 951 F.2d 369, 390 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
The Poindexter appeals panel also overturned the two obstruction
convictions on the grounds that the statute was ``unconstitutionally
vague'' in its proscription of ``corruptly'' endeavoring to impede a
congressional inquiry. The appeals panel ruled that a defendant's
lying to Congress does not constitute obstruction unless the defendant
corruptly influences someone else to do so. Again, Chief Judge Mikva
dissented, finding it "obvious . . . that Poindexter 'corruptly'
obstructed the congressional investigation when he lied to Congress."'
sources: "Chapter 3: United States v. John M. Poindexter," 
Excerpted from FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR IRAN/CONTRA
MATTERS (1993) by  Lawrence E. Walsh, Independent Counsel, hosted by
Missouri.edu
http://foi.missouri.edu/journalismres/irancontrachpt3.html
Complete text also available from Federation of American Scientists:
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

------

As indicated in the preceding article, the citation for the appellate
court reversal of Poindexter's conviction is 951 F.2d 369 (D.C. Cir.
1991). If you'd like to obtain the complete text of the decision, it's
available from Lexis-Nexis for $9.
Here are instructions on how to do that:
(1) Go to:
http://web.lexis.com/xchange/forms/uas/casepull.asp
(2) In the "Enter Citation:" box, type: 951 F.2d 369
(3) Press the "search button"
(4) Register your credit card details when prompted
(5) You'll be given the opportunity to purchase the complete text of:
"United States v. Poindexter, No. 90-3125, UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, 292 U.S. App. D.C. 389;
951 F.2d 369; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 26824, February 28, 1991, Argued,
November 15, 1991, Decided
OVERVIEW: Defendant's conviction could not stand because the
Independent Counsel could not demonstrate that defendant's compelled
immunized testimony was not used against him at his trial in violation
of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution."
Source: Lexis-Nexis
http://web.lexis.com/xchange/forms/uas/casepull.asp


search strategy:
poindexter, conviction, overturned, "appeals court"
poindexter, mikva, 1991
poindexter, 951 F.2d 369

I hope this helps.
oldcurmudgeon-ga rated this answer:5 out of 5 stars
It was indeed a 5-star answer and I appreciate the references toward
further research.  [I am really miffed by Ollie North's allegation
that the reversal VINDICATES him and Poindexter.]  It was, after all a
TECHNICALITY.
Howcome my first effort to get this information from Google came up
empty?  I thought I gave sufficient background to earn an answer
without special research.  After that, we can talk about a tip on top
of the $20 bucks that I thought was quite generous - given the
relevance of the matter after all this time.

Comments  
Subject: Re: John Poindexter's conviction for lying to congress during IRAN/CONTRA
From: juggler-ga on 19 Aug 2003 02:47 PDT
 
Hi Oldcurmudgeon,

You ask, "How come my first effort to get this information from Google
came up
empty?"

Well, without knowing what search terms you were using, it's hard to
say.

As indicated above, the basic information is available on the web. The
CSMonitor story mentioned may be found with these search terms:
poindexter, conviction, overturned, "appeals court" 
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=poindexter%2C+conviction%2C+overturned%2C+%22appeals+court%22+&btnG=Google+Search

However, a Google search about "John Poindexter" alone (without terms
such as "overturned" and/or "appeals court") is less likely to yield
results that specifically mention details about Poindexter's reversed
conviction.

Regards,
juggler

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  


Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy