Radio Interview Request from 2000, right before unconstitutional retrial

-----Original Message-----
From: Marty Moss-Coane
To: DC and Ira
Date: Friday, March 10, 2000 10:34 AM
Subject: Interview with Ira Einhorn


Dear Mr. Williams:
We appreciate your willingness to forward the following message to Mr. Einhorn:

Dear Mr. Einhorn:

On Wednesday, March 15 during the 10-11AM hour of Radio Times, our guests will be DA Lynne Abraham and Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Daniel Rubin. Our intent is to revisit your case and to discuss current developments.

Would you be willing to do a 10 minute interview to open the show. My questions will be limited to the specifics of your case.

Thank you for your consideration.

Marty Moss Coane
Radio Times
WHYY-FM

[DC and Ira's response to...]

Marty,

I got an email yesterday from Ira Einhorn in response to your forwarded
interview request.

I understand that he will be having someone contact you directly to make
appropriate arrangements.

As far as your indicated purview for the interview you seek, I would suggest that one of the most important and significant specifics of his case at this point, in addition to the points of evidence already part of the record in court procedings and how Einhorn might address these points on the radio, is the contention by the DA that her "guarantee" of a new trial is legally viable as fulfillment of one of the French authorities' extadition conditions, in spite of the contention by independent legal scholars that such a new trial is not legally possible, at least without a definitive ruling on that point by an appropriate judicial authority perhaps even at the level of the US Supreme Court.

For a qualified legal opinion on why such offer/commitment/guarantee by the DA without such judicial concurrence in writing would be a violation of the US Constitution's separation of powers doctrine you can obtain from Ira's attorney there a copy of the sworn affidavit dated November 27, 1998, John W. Packel, then Chief of the Appeals Division of the Philadelphia Public Defender Office who had held that position as of then for 30 years practicing criminal law in Philadelphia. Certainly the Philadelphia DA has seen this document already whose closing line regarding the DA's "guarantee" of a new trial is, "The District Attorney's claim is, at the least, unsupportable and disingenuous". In this affidavit Mr. Packel cites legal authorities and precedents, court decisions, etc., to support his statement that "Frankly, I am appalled, but not surprised, by the District Attorney's [Abraham] 'guarantee' which refers to the statute granting a new trial but makes no reference whatsoever to the controlling decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unequivocally holding that any such statute is invalid." He goes on to criticize that "...the District Attorney ignores, making absolutely no reference to, clear and compelling authority establishing that the statute it drafted is unconstitutional, unenforceable and invalid." He also says that "I do not believe the District Attorney's 'guarantees' and I do not believe that these 'guarantees' are honestly made", and that "In the light of any real consideration the District Attorney's 'guarantee' must be dismissed as, at the least, misleading".

This point seems to have been the main focus and purpose of the recent press conference in France and was addressed in detail by Einhorn's attorneys there, yet the essence of this position was not apparently reported at all by the media. If your radio show can bring up this point and reference the elements of that brief for the DA to address on the air, you may be able to make a significant contribution to resolving that glitch in the extradition procedings if the DA's position is correct, or to expose her offer/commitment as illegal and a knowing sham if, as some contend, indeed it is.

Personally, I think this is the only one of the conditions for extradition that remains at issue since, in spite of the media hype so far, I think all parties agree that the death penalty nonapplication provision controversy is moot because the crime for which he was convicted took place in a time frame before the death penalty law was passed.

If you really want to help further clearer understanding of the status of this case I suggest that you specifically and carefully address this point on the radio with the DA and with Ira or whoever he asks to contact you regarding taking part in your radio interview on March 15.
It is a shame that the misconduct of the Philadelphia District Attorney's office and its incompetence and dishonesty in this matter is preventing justice being served in this case.