Just "one procedural question" for prosecutor Renz as he opposed Sen. Craig's motion to withdraw his guilty plea

I've looked at a whole bunch of press accounts of Wednesday afternoon's hearing on Larry Craig's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This report of the hearing, from the WaPo, is about as detailed as any I've seen:

A Minnesota judge reacted skeptically Wednesday to Sen. Larry E. Craig's bid to withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct in a Minneapolis airport restroom, asking why the Idaho Republican should be allowed to renew his defense.

Hennepin County District Judge Charles A. Porter said he would not rule on Craig's request until next week, and Craig softened his pledge to resign from the Senate by Sunday if his case was not resolved, announcing that he would remain in office "for now."

....

The judge asked only one procedural question of the prosecutors who after the hearing expressed confidence. "We feel like we have a very strong case," said Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which oversees the airport police. "I think the facts are clear."

Oh, so it's just "one procedural question," is it? No drama there. Probably had to do with some picky little rule or something. There can't be any need to explain that in any more detail, can there?

This leaves me banging my head on my desktop. What if the exchange was this?

THE COURT: Mr. Renz, I just have one question for you. When you drafted the written motion for Sen. Craig to enter his guilty plea to the disorderly conduct charge for him to review, sign, and mail back, you obviously knew that it would be presented to the Court by mail and without a written in-person appearance at which the Court could conduct a colloquy on the record to confirm the details of the plea. And you also knew that at least up to that point, no counsel had entered an appearance for Sen. Craig, and he appeared to be trying to represent himself pro se. So did the State do anything to ensure that this plea tracked or complied with the following provisions of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure: Rule 15.02(3), as incorporated for mail-in pleas by Rule 15.03; Appendices B or C to Rule 15; or Form 11?

MR. RENZ: No, Your Honor.

Now, a question like that would induce narcolepsy in most reporters. But if that was the "one procedural question," that might strongly suggest that there was a whole 'nuther ball game, sports fans, that the reporters didn't even realize was being played. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote:

My revised estimation is that Sen. Craig's odds of prevailing on his motion are somewhere below 5%. The only kind of judge who could grant this motion would be the kind who elevates procedural form over all substance, who cares nothing about whether procedural violations have even arguably prejudiced the defendant, and who is also remarkably unoffended by lawyers and litigants who lack fundamental candor.

I still think that's right. But since, in my judgment, Craig's only real chance is based on procedural arguments, it would be kind of nice to know what "one procedural question" Judge Porter asked. If it were as tightly focused on what the prosecution did wrong as the hypothetical question I just drafted, the answer to that one question alone might indicate that Judge Porter puts a pretty high premium on complying strictly with all of the procedural niceties, especially when it comes to something as fundamental as the exercise or waiver of a defendant's right to counsel.

So: Has anyone seen a press account of the hearing that quotes or even closely paraphrases what the "one procedural question" actually was?

There apparently was no live testimony; if anyone objected to the other side's affidavit evidence as hearsay, that hasn't been reported. Apparently neither side has my own gambler's instinct — although if either side did have good grounds to want to stick close to the written briefs, affidavits, and exhibits already on file, it would have been the prosecution.

Craig's team desperately needed to throw the ball all the way to the end zone, in my opinion, to have even a chance of getting to play in over-time. Instead, lead counsel Billy Martin apparently ran an off-tackle left, which Judge Porter stuffed for a one-yard loss (the argument that nothing Craig did could have constituted disorderly conduct); tossed to Minneapolis co-counsel Thomas Kelly on an end-around, which was stopped for a six-yard loss (the unbriefed argument that Craig's written plea needed to have a judge's signature on it); fired an incomplete pass at his own feet (leaving Craig in Washington instead of having him attend the hearing in person); and then punted as the final seconds ticked off the clock (Craig's statement to the press that pending a ruling, he intends to stay in office).

Unless the "one procedural question" turned into a prosecution fumble that was returned for a TD without anyone noticing, then, Judge Porter's likely to blow the whistle overruling Craig's motion, and consequently ending his career, early next week.

-----------------------

Previous posts on the Craig matter, oldest to most recent:

1. The answer to the "Why was this a crime?" crowd on the Craig matter
2. Craig "reconsidering" resignation; and his chance to withdraw his guilty plea is probably better than Beldar first presumed
3. Has Larry Craig hired the part-time prosecutor who filed the complaint against him?
4. Craig swears that on the date of his arrest, he "decided to seek a guilty plea to whatever charge would be lodged" against him
5. In letter forwarding proposed plea, prosecutor Renz repeatedly reminded Craig of his right to counsel and warned that plea would result in "a conviction for Disorderly Conduct appearing on [his] criminal record"
6. ACLU files silly brief in support of Craig's plea withdrawal
7. Prosecution moves to strike ACLU amicus brief supporting Craig's motion to withdraw guilty plea
8. Of pleas and piñatas: No surprises in prosecution's response to Craig's motion to withdraw guilty plea
9. Craig plans to ditch hearing, but Renz should object to his affidavit as hearsay and force Craig to take the stand