Live Witnesses

"In a move that could add to the government's arsenal in the Galleon Group insider-trading case, prosecutors made a federal court filing Wednesday that suggested they are on the verge of accepting a guilty plea fronm former McKinsey & Co. partner Anil Kumar. ... The government 'wants live witnesses,' says John Coffee, a law professor at Columbia University. 'If you have someone saying, "This was the conspiracy and we talked about it and this was our goal," that is more effective' than documents such as emails he said. He added that prosecutors may be telling the other defendants that those who strike early deals may get better treatment than latecomers", my emphasis, Susan Pulliam & Kelly Nolan at the WSJ, 31 December 2009, link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704152804574628552933868662.html.

Disagreeing with Professor Coffee. It's more effective only if the AUSA does not know how to assemble a circumstantial evidence case, which seems endemic at the DOJ. I would not believe any federal witness whose testimony was not corroborated with documents. I would presume the AUSA was suborning perjury. It's that bad at the DOJ.