Who Is Carla Martin and Why Is She In Trouble?

Lawyer excoriated by both sides after Moussaoui trial blunder

Until Monday, Martin, 51, was a mid-career attorney working in relative obscurity at the Transportation Safety Administration. Now she's a fixture in the news.

It began with the disclosure of conduct that threatens to derail the sentencing trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person to face a U.S. jury in connection with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Martin is accused of improperly contacting a half-dozen aviation safety witnesses in violation of a judge's order. She sent them trial transcripts by e-mail, supplemented with her observations, suggestions and talking points, according to testimony.

Martin's attorney, Roscoe Howard, defended her Thursday.

"Someone has decided they're going to throw her under the bus, and that's exactly what's happened here," Howard said Thursday in an interview with CNN. "I think there are explanations for everything." Howard said earlier in a statement that Martin has been "viciously vilified by assertions from the prosecution and various media pundits."

"Only her accusers' stories have been told; and those stories have been accepted as the whole truth. They are not," Howard's statement said.

Details here from CNN.

Comments

[Cc:]

After following this story and finding the motion filed in the 9/11 civil aviation case pending in NY, it appears very likely Martin was working to further the interets of certain civil defendants (airlines) with her efforts to incfluence the testimony of the agency officials she represented.

This going to be quite a mess all around before it is over. On the bright side, assuming Martin is not disbarred and/or imprisoned she should have no trouble finding a job with the airline industry or a firm with airline clients.

[John H.]

"No Trouble"? The airlines or an airline firm won't touch her with a ten foot pole or a nine foot Greek.

[Junior]

Carla is a lap dog and she messed the nest! Just put the Arab in jail for life and I am pretty sure it won't end up being very long (maybe less time than the appeals). As bad as our own prisoners are, they will drop this Islamic coward like a bad trransmission. He pleaded guilty to three "Death Penelty" counts and now this liberal judge wants to let him live his life. The idiot judge should go to prison with him and she can try to keep him safe there.

[Cc]

John C.: Apparently, ironic humor is not appropriate for this audience.



The immediately preceding comment, while somewhat inscrutable and one of the more baffling mixed metaphors I have seen is unintentionally funny though.

[Ray]

Interesting that Junior thinks that only liberal judges would be concerned about an accused who plead guilty to three "Death Penelty" counts where he was not directly involved, and apparently didn't even have direct knowledge.

I knew that supporters of the administration didn't let facts get in their way, but I was hoping that judges, liberal or conservative, still did. Maybe I'm just naive.

I'd be interested in any legal opinion on this question:

The government's case relies on the assumption that if Moussaoui had informed that government of what he knew then 9/11 would have been prevented, thus his failing to inform made him part of the conspiracy.

This seems ludicrious on the fact of it - the government can barely stop drooling its shoes, much less put the paltry facts Moussaoui had at his disposal together with everything else they knew to arrive at a conclusion where 9/11 was prevented. Ludicrious seems to be the Justice Departments chief style of argument these days though, so there you have it.

Anyway, what if, in an effort to discredit the governments fact-finding, analytical and other abilities, the defense called Carla Martin to testify or otherwise used her as evidence of general government incompetence. Would that sort testimony or evidence be permitted? Could the defense refer to it in arguments?