The allegedly forged documents submitted in Jane Orie’s corruption trial came directly from her, according to her attorney in a perplexing affidavit submitted recently. [Trib]
The news story does not say what prompted the affidavit, but the way it is summarized makes it sound like the lawyer is saying “I swear I didn’t doctor the documents before submitting them to the court” which I thought was just sort of a basic evidentiary presumption and not something you needed to assert spontaneously. University of Pittsburgh law professor David Harris seems to agree with me. “It’s troubling for an attorney to be giving evidence in a case that he’s representing someone,” he told the Trib. “I’ve never seen anything quite like this. I’m not saying it’s wrong. It is unusual.”
The corruption trial is set for January.