Matthew Barakat of The Associated Press and Jessica Gresko report:
Former California Rep. Gary Condit told jurors Monday that he didn’t murder Chandra Levy and insisted he cooperated fully with police when they investigated the Washington intern’s disappearance nearly a decade ago. But he continued to evade direct questions about whether he had an intimate relationship with Levy, saying “we’re all entitled to some level of privacy.”
While I agree with him that we’re all entitled to some level of privacy, it strikes me that an affair might give someone motive and that the defense has a right to make the case or raise the issue. Yet — and this actually surprised me — the judge did not require Condit to answer the question:
Prosecutor Amanda Haines never asked Condit if he and Levy had an affair, but she did ask why he never acknowledged an affair. His voice broke slightly, and he said it was “purely based on principle.”
“I think we’re all entitled to some level of privacy … It seems like in this country we’ve lost a sense of decency. I didn’t commit any crime; I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong.”
On cross-examination, though, public defender Mario Hawilo put the question to Condit directly: Did you ever have an intimate relationship with Levy?
“I have already stated I’m not going to respond to those questions,” Condit said.
Hawilo persisted until Superior Court Judge Gerald Fisher told her to move on.
Read more on Forbes. Do you think Condit should have been ordered to answer the question?