Category: Corruption

Former Rep. Cunningham Receives 100 Month Prison Term

March 3rd, 2006

Former Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a Viet-Nam fighter ace and five-term Congressman before his 2005 resignation, received a sentence of eight years and four months after pleading guilty to corruption and tax evasion charges. The sentence, the longest ever given a former member of Congress for conduct related to office, fell between the ten-year maximum prosecutors sought and the six years recommended by defense counsel. As part of the plea agreement, Cunningham’s sentence was capped at ten years, and if he were to cooperate in the pending prosecution of three others who paid him the approximately $2.4 million in bribes he received, he could be eligible for a sentence reduction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. An auction of the items acquired with the bribes, and gifts given to secure government contracts, will be auctioned in the near future, and Cunningham has also been ordered to pay $1.8 million in back taxes and penalties. This is quite a fall from grace, but the misuse of authority for naked personal gain at the cost of awarding contracts that were unneeded by the military is among the most brazen seen in recent history. An AP story (here) discusses the sentencing. (ph)

_________________________________________________________

Eight years four months for Cunningham for $2.4 million in bribes. Not a case of no intent, not a case of not understanding the law, and not a case of walking a fine line in the corporate world.

The sentencing guidelines were established to achieve uniformity. Is this sentence uniform with those of Bernie Ebbers (25 years), John Rigas (15 years), Timothy Rigas (20 years). And based on this sentence, what should Jamie Olis now receive as his sentence?

(esp)
Former Louisiana Governor Strikes Out Again Attacking His Conviction

March 1st, 2006

It took the federal government a few trips to the well to convict former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards — elected to that office four times and one of the more colorful rogues in recent political history. Edwards and his son, Stephen, were convicted in 2000 on a variety of corruption charges, including RICO, and they received sentences of 120 months and 84 months, respectively. Even then, another federal trial after the conviction resulted in an acquittal of Edwards on different corruption charges.

After affirming the convictions on direct appeal in 2001 that was argued by Alan Dershowitz, the Fifth Circuit has now turned down the Edwards’ Sec. 2255 motions to vacate the convictions on grounds that the government suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. They first contended that a key government witness had a secret agreement with federal and state prosecutors to shield his gains from a gambling license obtained through bribery of then-Governor Edwards from a state civil forfeiture action, and along the way threw in a claim that the federal judge who took the witness’ plea was a party to the secret agreement. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion (U.S. v. Edwards here) flatly rejected the claim, finding no evidentiary support and noting that the state court hearing the civil forfeiture suit heard testimony that there was no such agreement. The second basis for the Sec. 2255 motions was that the government failed to disclose one of its witnesses was planning to write a book about his involvement in Edwards’ bribery, a fact that the Fifth Circuit held was immaterial to the case and therefore not a ground to reverse the conviction.

This is likely the last gasp by Gov. Edwards to have his conviction overturned. He is currently serving his term at the Oakdale (LA) federal detention center, which includes a satellite camp for minimum security prisoners. His release date is July 2011, at which time he will be 83 years old.
The Abramoff Effect

March 1st, 2006

With Jack Abramoff talking, it is not surprising to see others taking note. For one, AP reports here that state lawmakers are cracking down on lobbying with new laws that prohibit gift-giving in the lobbying industry.

And the Washington Post had a wonderful story here giving detail on the personal side of Jack Abramoff. The column presents a different side to the Abramoff being portrayed in most papers. One has to wonder if many are deliberately trying to paint Abramoff negatively so that his image will be tainted when he testifies against the politicians and others who might have been engaged in wrongdoing with him.

(esp)
Campbell Trial: Call Your First Witness

February 27th, 2006

Lawyers are taught that the law of primacy and recency should be considered in choosing the order of witnesses. Seeing who will be the first witness for Bill Campbell lets one know that this was definitely considered by the defense team. The witness according to the AJC here is going to be Andrew Young, "the former Atlanta mayor, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and one of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s closest aides." If he proves to be helpful, this could be devastating to the prosecution. If he proves incredibly supportive, it may be possible that Campbell will not need to take the stand. (see here). Stay tuned.

(esp)
Will Campbell Testify?

February 26th, 2006

The big question in the Bill Campbell trial is whether the former mayor will take the witness stand? (See AJC here). It is a tough call in a case such as this one. The cross-examination of the key witnesses connecting Campbell to the illegal payments would lead one to believe that he will not take the witness stand. On the other hand, there is some evidence out there that does require a response. For the defense it is a tough call as it will open him up to cross-examination and who knows where that will lead the government. On the other hand, we are dealing with an attorney, former mayor, and an individual who can probably hold his own against the prosecution.

It is nice for the defense to not be required to have to prove anything and to have the prosecution bear the burden of proof. But on the other hand, should our criminal system have one rolling dice on how best to proceed.

I have to agree with University of Georgia law professor Ron Carlson (see AJC) — I think we will hear from Bill Campbell in his trial. But I have been known to be proved wrong.

(esp)
What Is Cooperation Worth?

February 25th, 2006

With Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleading guilty and set for sentencing (see here), the government can now move to sentencing a co-defendant who provided cooperation in the case against Cunningham. CNN reports here that Mitchell Wade pleaded guilty to giving bribes to Cunningham. Wade, a defense contractor, was said to have paid this money in exchange for government contracts. According to the Tampa Tribune here, a US Representative from Florida who is running for the Senate, and a US Rep from Virginia may have also been the recipient of illegal campaign contributions from Wade.

It will be interesting to see if the briber or bribee gets a greater sentence? How much is cooperation worth?

(esp)
Follow the Bouncing Ball for This Potential Conflict

February 24th, 2006

The prosecution of former Illinois Governor George Ryan may take an interesting turn that raises issues of legal ethics related to his defense counsel from large firm Winston & Strawn and a defense witness who, at this point in time, is the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois. This one is a bit hard to follow, so follow the bouncing ball here (for fans of "Sing Along with Mitch" and other outstanding early 1960s entertainment). Edward McNally was Ryan’s attorney in 2001, and he testified at trial about meetings with prosecutors in 2001 about the case. At the time, McNally was a partner at Altheimer & Gray, which went into bankruptcy in 2003 and owes, among others, LaSalle Bank approximatley $28 million on a defaulted loan. Here’s where it gets a bit convoluted. Winston & Strawn is counsel to the creditors in the Altheimer & Gray bankruptcy, and in that proceeding five former partners opted not to participate in a bankruptcy court plan for paying the firm’s debts, and one of those partners is McNally. Since then, Winston & Strawn has sued four of those partners to recover for their liability on the loan, but the one partner not sued is — you guessed it — McNally. Based on his ownership interest in the partnership, McNally is potentially liable for more than $500,000 of the bank loan.

According to a Chicago Sun-Times article (here), prosecutors are raising a ruckus that Winston & Strawn, which is representing Ryan pro bono, has gone easy on McNally to ensure his cooperation, and the failure to disclose the conflict means that the government could not impeach his testimony with all relevant information. Winston & Strawn has said that it was not aware of any potential conflict, and that may well be the case with a firm that large and the different departments (probably on different floors) handling the cases. Whether the information is particularly damning for McNally, it does raise an interesting question related to Winston & Strawn: did the firm view McNally, now in a very important government position, as a person who it would be better not to sue, and if so, was that in its client’s interest or a desire to cull favor? The dots are pretty far apart to see a far-reaching plan to shield McNally to preserve his cooperation in the Ryan case, except for those addicted to conspiracy theories. But, the relationship raises questions about Winton & Strawn’s internal conflicts mechanism, and whether the issue should have been flagged before McNally testified. Better to reveal before the fact than try to explain something after its revelation. (ph)
“Star Witness” In Campbell Trial Now on Cross

February 22nd, 2006

Georgia businessman Ronnie Thornton, described by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (here) as the government’s star witness in the prosecution of former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell, completed his direct testimony. Thornton testified that he provided Campbell with over $125,000 in "campaign contributions" in the names of fictitious contributors in exchange for a $300 million dirt hauling contract related to the construction of a new runway at the airport, but that he was betrayed when the Mayor awarded the contract to another company. The cross-examination immediately focused on the usual soft-spot for some prosecution witnesses: the cooperation agreement that reduced Thornton’s sentence to probation and a fine, and the government’s decision not to pursue other fraud charges against him. Thornton asserted that charges in an unrelated case were never filed because there was no basis for a criminal charge, but whether that is in fact true may be irrelevant to whether the jury finds him to be a credible witness. The government had initially stated that its case would take five weeks, and this is the fifth week, so the prosecution’s case-in-chief may be coming to a close. (ph)
Campbell Case: Great Testimony But Will It Still Be Standing Tomorrow

February 21st, 2006

The Bill Campbell trial had some compelling testimony, with the Atlanta Jrl Constitution reporting here that "[b]usinessman C.R. ‘Ronnie’ Thornton, . . . told jurors that he gave Campbell’s re-election campaign more than $126,000 illegally in 1997." The problem with the testimony is that despite the payment, he did not receive the city contract. Will the jury think that this sounded like a motive for testifying against Campbell?

(esp)
Investigation of Former Spokane Mayor Closed

February 17th, 2006

The federal investigation of former Spokane Mayor Jim West ended with the FBI determining that there was no evidence that he intended to engage in honest services fraud related to offering jobs to men he met through internet chat rooms. The federal inquiry was conducted through the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington in Seattle because the Eastern District’s Office recused itself (earlier post here). West was recalled in December 2005 when approximately 65% of Spokane’s voters favored removing him from office. No word yet on whether state or local prosecutors will pursue any charges, although the federal exoneration (if it can be called that) could set West on the road to political rehabilitation, as an AP story (here) notes here that he has not ruled out another run for elected office. (ph)