we're back now at 7:42 with the latest of the dominique strauss-kahn case. on monday the hotel maid at the center of the case spoke out saying she wants him to go to jail after he allegedly attacked her in a luxury manhattan hotel. but prosecutors were under pressure to drop the case in the wake of revelation that the alleged victim lied about certain things in her past. so did her interviews help or hurt the prosecution?
is today's legal correspondent. savannah, good morning.
the accuser in this case speaks out saying she wants to protect her side of the story. her lawyer gave a 20-minute news conference, talking about the events of that day. and some have started to question whether he has acted ethically at this stage of the case. there's a
code of conduct
for lawyers. rule 3.6a says a lawyer shall not make extra judicial statement or an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing and adjudicative proceeding in the matter. basically you should not speak out and negatively influence a case at this stage. did he break that ethical rule?
defense lawyers for dominique strauss-kahn came out and said this breach's lawyer's ethics, the rule you just read. it's always a
is permitted to speak out on behalf of his client. and, in fact, that same rule you cite has what you could call a
provision, that says a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect the client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity.
there's been a lot of that.
there has. the prosecutors have had to say in
they have serious questions about the accuser's credibility so i think the
should argue i had no choice but to put my client out there.
she granted a series of interviews and they will be heard by the public. it occurs to me the person she wants to hear that interview more than anyone is the district attorney in this case who is under pressure to drop it because after you hear the details of what she says happened in that
, isn't it going to be very hard for him to stand up and say, we're dropping the case?
it's very odd circumstances, extremely unorthodox for any attorney to put out the complaining witness to out her publicly in order not to counter what some
has said tarnishing her but what the prosecutors who would be bringing this trial to case. number one, there's no question this is designed to pressure the prosecutor, put
on the prosecutor.
we should mention she granted these interviews without consulting the prosecutor for advisor seeking his approval.
that was the second point. this signals a real rift between the complaining witness who should be the star witness in a rape case and prosecutors because there is no way any prosecutor looking to try a case would put his complaining witness out on television giving multiple accounts of this story so a future
could pick over it.
while he words could be powerful, it can be a double edged sword because now she's on the record again telling a version of the story. if it's not the same as the verge she's already told to investigators, that's a problem.
fairly or unfairly, this is
fodder. they will pick over the inconsistencies between this statement and every other account this alleged victim has given. the other thing about it, i think in terms of the strength of this case, what struck me most is that the prosecutors say when she recounted a prior allegation of rape she made a false allegation of a gang rape in her
. they said she was distraught, she looked upset. there are huge credibility problems with this case. that's why the prosecutors are considering dropping it. and this attorney bringing his client out there does not help the prosecutor make this decision. the prosecutor wants to be able to quietly, such as it is, do the investigation and determine whether this case can be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt
we will continue to watch what happens.
, thank you.