Browse archives: 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995

Published on 10/05/1998 All articles from this issue

President Clinton should resign, according to local defense attorney Gerald Uelmen

printer friendly version

By Laura Brown

Special to the Town Crier

If Gerald Uelmen had been advising Bill Clinton on his testimony to Ken Starr's Grand Jury, he would have told him to "take the Fifth." Speaking to the Morning Forum of Los Altos, the noted defense attorney and law professor said that he had, in fact, written an Op-Ed article advocating that position. Uelmen said that in addition to saving Clinton from possible perjury charges, the President's assertion of his right not to incriminate himself might have restored some respectability to a constitutional right, which has wrongly become the equivalent of a guilty plea in many people's minds.

Noting that Clinton was listening more to his political advisors than his legal advisors, Uelmen said that the President was "not a dream client, since he was probably lying to his lawyers too." Professor Uelmen says he is inclined to believe that lying to the Grand Jury is material, and does meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors" definition. He thinks that the Lewinsky matter has damaged the country and the Presidency and that Clinton should resign.

Describing the role of Grand Juries, Professor Uelmen called upon his years as a Federal prosecutor investigating organized crime, citing a case involving cheating at gin rummy games at the Friar's Club in Los Angeles.

"Any prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich," Uelmen said, noting that the "probable cause" threshold for indictment is very low compared to "beyond a reasonable doubt" required for conviction in trials Since Grand Jury proceedings take place in complete secrecy, without a judge or defense attorney. Prosecutors have sometimes misused the proceedings as fishing expeditions for evidence. Various reforms have been proposed, but have not been universally adopted, except for a recent Supreme Court decision that the prosecution is obligated to present exculpatory evidence as well as incriminating evidence to the Grand Jury.

Asked the inevitable question about how his conscience allowed him to defend 0. J. Simpson, Uelmen responded that he was defending the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not defending the crime. He has written a book, "Lessons from the Trial," reflecting on the issues in the case, and the effect it has had on American culture. He thinks that there are parallels to be drawn from the Simpson case and the Clinton scandal. The Simpson case exposed a racial gulf in the country, demonstrating how differently racial groups view things, and he sees the Clinton case exposing a moral gulf between those who are disgusted and angered by Clinton's conduct and those who believe that "they all do it."

Membership in the Morning Forum is closed for this year. For waiting-list information, write to The Morning Forum of Los Altos, P.O. Box 274, Los Altos 94023.