Defending the White Collar Case: In & Out of Court"
NACDL & Georgetown’s 3rd Annual White Collar Seminar – Sept. 27-28.
Information here.
(esp)
Category: News
-
Co-blogger Peter Henning has an op-ed piece in the National Law Journal titled, "The Danger of Politics." It is hard to imagine that in a department of career prosecutors, politics could enter into the hiring and firing of people in the office. Why weren’t prosecutors speaking up? Why was the individual at the top allowing this to happen? Didn’t they have a proper compliance program?
(esp)
-
As anticipated, Italia Federici entered a plea of guilty to an obstruction and tax charge. This is yet another case brought to us by DOJ and Jack Abramoff. The interesting part to now follow is whether Federici, and others who have also entered pleas, will offer missing links in yet other cases. How high up the ladder will all these pleas go. (See Washington Post here).
(esp)
-
The Indictment, described here, offers a good bit about the direction that the prosecution is prepared to take should this case go to trial. Some thoughts:
1. The case is brought in the Eastern District of Virginia, yet the harm alleged in many counts relates to actions related to his position in Congress which of course is located in the District of Columbia and Louisiana. When the government proceeds with conspiracy, they are able to charge in the district where the agreement took place, or where any of the acts took place, and where the parties may have an interest. In this Indictment one finds a cooperating witness in Virginia and the United States Trade and Development Agency also located there. One also finds others connections to Virginia. The government has enormous discretion in a case such as this is choosing its venue, and the defense basically has none. The government’s choice here was to place this case in the "rocket docket" jurisdiction and to place it in a venue that is likely to be more favorable to the government.
2. The Indictment mentions that Rep. Jefferson has a JD degree from Harvard and an LL.M. in tax from Georgetown. Is it really necessary to include a person’s educational background in an indictment? Or is this an attempt by the government to quash any future claims that might be made by the accused that he did not know what he did was against the law?
3. The Indictment is a classic case of double billing. The government charges conspiracy for the same acts as the substantive offenses, and then repeats them as predicate acts for RICO. Thus the charges in some instances are three times for the same conduct. Is the government permitted to do this- yes.
4. Who are the government witnesses? Two are obvious, as they are named. But the rest range from official A, businessperson A, Company A, and proceed through much of the beginning part of the alphabet in like fashion. Why are there so many undisclosed individuals in this indictment? Is the government protecting its witnesses so that they testify for them and that their businesses do not feel any repercussions? Will the defense be able to properly prepare their defense without these witnesses being disclosed?
5.Several counts relate to a deprivation of honest services. Is it really possible to deprive the United States House of Representatives of their right to honest services?
6. The timing of this Indictment presents some interesting questions also. How long has the government had its evidence? Is it just coincidental that it comes the day before the sentencing of I "Scooter" Libby?
Just some initial thoughts.
(esp)
-
The investigation of Congressman Jefferson has been the subject of several blogspots. For background information see:
-
The American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section’s White Collar Crime Committee and Perkins Coie LLP –
Program Title: Staying on Track When Worlds Collide: Practical Advice for Corporations Conducting Internal Investigations and Responding to Government Inquiries
Keynote: Carol Lam, Sr. Vice-President and Lead Counsel, Qualcomm, and former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, San Diego, CA.
Date: June 7, 2007
Time: 3:00 – 5:00, with reception following
Location: University Club of Chicago, 76 E. Monroe Street, Chicago, IL
For more information here.
(esp)
-
Any description of the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy that does not include words like tortuous, labyrinthine, or bizarre just doesn’t quite capture how strange this case has been. Coming on the heels of Scrushy’s acquittal on securities fraud charges, the corruption case against the two men has included allegations of a political witch hunt of Siegelman, who barely lost re-election in 2002 and was running for the Democratic nomination while on trial in 2006. Since the trial, e-mails allegedly between jurors discussing the case have surfaced from an anonymous source and raise questions about possible misconduct, although the court denied a motion for a new trial based on this evidence. A defense motion questioning racial discrimination in the jury selection remains undecided. Allegations that the presiding judge has secret ties to a federal prosecutor through a company in which he was an officer triggered a recusal motion that was denied. Now comes a story in Time (here) alleging that Presidential adviser Karl Rove arranged to have Siegelman investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s in the Northern and Middle Districts of Alabama — the corruption case was prosecuted in the Middle District. According to the article, "A longtime Republican lawyer in Alabama swears she heard a top G.O.P. operative in the state say that Rove ‘had spoken with the Department of Justice’ about ‘pursuing’ Siegelman, with help from two of Alabama’s U.S. attorneys." The claim against Rove is hearsay, but that hardly seems to matter. Look for Siegelman — and Scrushy, who is not shy about assailing the government — to raise a great hue and cry about the prosecution’s motives. Like their other claims, it likely will fall on deaf ears in the District Court, and probably won’t get much traction in the Eleventh Circuit, either. I’m tempted to say that this case can’t get much weirder, but no prediction is safe with this one. (ph)
-
The testimony by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey about the dramatic 2004 meeting in the intensive care unit with then-Counsel to the President Alberto Gonzales and Attorney General John Ashcroft concerned the Department of Justice’s authorization for a classified surveillance program. In response to a question about Comey’s testimony, President Bush stated he could not respond because it concerned a classified program (see earlier post here). In response to further questions by reporters, White House spokesman Tony Fratto hinted (here) that Comey’s testimony was improper, but deferred to the Department of Justice about whether he could be prosecuted for disclosing classified information.
Q Does the White House believe that James Comey was out of line in discussing this in a public hearing?
MR. FRATTO: I don’t have any comment on that.
Q If he was, Tony, then you —
Q If you won’t comment on that issue because of the classified nature of the program on which it was focused, it seems like you might think that Comey was out of line in discussing it.
MR. FRATTO: You can draw conclusions.
Q I mean, is there any possibility that Mr. Comey will be charged with divulging classified information for discussing this? I mean, if the President is not willing to discuss this, and it’s improper to do so, then wasn’t it improper for Mr. Comey to discuss this?
MR. FRATTO: I think that would be a question for the Department of Justice.
Q Tony, was there anything factually incorrect about Comey’s version?
MR. FRATTO: I’m not in a position to comment on reports of Comey’s testimony.
While Comey’s testimony made reference to a classified program, it is not clear that just mentioning the general subject matter of the meeting would itself reveal anything about the program. The White House is clearly not happy with what Comey said, but to this point the only response has been to say that he told his side of the story without directly contradicting it. There were a number of people present at Ashcroft’s bedside in 2004, and to this point only Comey has discussed the meeting in detail. Is the silence because of the classified nature of the program at issue, or is it because Comey’s testimony was a fair recitation of what actually occurred? (ph)
-
The Chicago Tribune reports on an undercover probe into what appears to be the Chicago real estate development world. But there is one fascinating aspect to the story. It seems the Tribune knew about this undercover operation, but decided to hold publication of the story at the request of the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. The story discusses the considerations in making the decision to hold the story.
(esp)
-
Yahoo News reports of a recent resignation of a Bush official titling the article, Bush Official Resigns Over Escort Links.
(esp)
MattBray.net 