Alabama: Judge to rule on any dropped charges

Gambling corruption trial: Judge to rule on any dropped charges
Written by Sebastian Kitchen

The judge presiding over a high-profile corruption case said he will decide today whether he will toss out any of the charges against nine defen­dants in the federal trial accusing VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor, two of his lobbyists, four current or former state senators, and two others of cor­rupting the legislative process in Alabama to pass gambling legislation.

After hearing more than eight hours of arguments Wednesday from prosecutors and defense attorneys on mo­tions for acquittal and whether there was a conspiracy, U.S. District Judge Myron Thomp­son said he will rule at 8 a.m. today on those motions. He said the trial on remaining charges would continue at 9 a.m.

While leaving the court­house Wednesday evening, three defense attorneys said that they believe Thompson could drop some of the charges today. At least one attorney was even more optimistic.

"We feel like there is a chance the entire case could be thrown out," said Bill White, an attorney for Sen. Harri Anne Smith, an independent from Slocomb who is a defendant in the case.

Joe Espy, lead attorney for McGregor, said they are opti­mistic, but expect the case to continue.

Lewis Gillis, an attorney for Sen. Quinton Ross, said Thomp­son was not clear which way he was leaning Wednesday, but that he could drop some charges and possibly "cut us loose."

All of the attorneys said they are prepared to move forward with their case.

The prosecution rested its case, which charges McGre­gor and other casino inter­ests with bribing state law­makers to support legislation that would legalize electronic gambling in the state, on Tuesday after eight weeks. Thompson gave the jury the day off Wednesday and lis­tened to arguments on the motions.

"I think the judge did a very good job of asking the questions that need to be raised," Espy said, adding that Thompson was obvious­ly prepared.

Thompson asked very pointed questions of both sides.

Thompson repeatedly questioned what would hap­pen to the case if he re­moved legislative analyst Ray Crosby from the con­spiracy charge. Crosby, while he was being paid to draft legislation for the Leg­islature, was also being paid $3,000 a month by McGre­gor.

(Page 2 of 5)

The judge also questioned how Ross, D-Montgomery, aggressively pushing for campaign contributions made him part of the con­spiracy to pass the gambling legislation.
Thompson also seemed uncertain if Bob Geddie, a lobbyist who worked for McGregor who was charged with obstruction of justice, should be charged for chang­ing the ledger, where contri­butions from clients were re­corded, if people could see the original information. Geddie is accused of having an employee change the led­ger that listed contributions to reflect that money given to Rep. Barry Mask came from other clients and not McGregor. Prosecutors ac­cuse him of trying to conceal illegal behavior.

"He didn't cover up his tracks well, but he did try to cover up his tracks," said Barak Cohen, a prosecutor with the Public Integrity Sec­tion at the U.S. Department of Justice.

Jimmy Judkins, an attor­ney for Geddie, said the orig­inal writing was a mistake and pointed out that the orig­inal writing could be seen so there was no effort to con­ceal any changes.

The defendants are McGregor; Crosby; Smith; Ross; Geddie; lobbyist Tom Coker; former state Sens. Jim Preuitt and Larry Means; and former Country Crossing spokesman Jay Walker.

Their attorneys tried to demonstrate Wednesday that there was not sufficient evi­dence to move forward with the case.

Prosecutor Eric Olshan, also with the U.S. Depart­ment of Justice's Public In­tegrity Section, said there was a conspiracy among those involved to use bribery to pass gambling legislation.

"Both the fight in the House and Senate was tooth and nail. They needed every vote" for gambling legislation, he said.

Several defense attorneys disagreed, pointing out that some of those involved didn't know each other and that some worked against each other's interests.

"Not only are they not a conspiracy, but they're work­ing in different directions," Coker attorney David McKnight said.

Crosby

Thompson focused many of his questions on Crosby. He questioned why McGre­gor paid Crosby $3,000 a month.

(Page 3 of 5)

Sam Heldman, an attorney for McGregor, said "we don't know."

"The evidence does not show why Crosby was being paid $3,000 a month," said Tommy Goggans, an attor­ney for Crosby.

Thompson asked if he could infer that the $3,000 payments to Crosby were to do favors for McGregor.

"We'll. He's not paying him $3,000 a month to do nothing," Thompson said to Goggans.
When asked by the judge if the court could assu]me the worst, Heldman responded "merely paying him is not a crime."

Olshan said McGregor and Crosby knew the payments were wrong because they stopped when the investiga­tion became public and be­cause Crosby did not initially report the income.

Thompson said there is a suspicion of nefarious behav­ior between McGregor and Crosby, but said he was not sure those activities are the ones outlined in the indict­ment.

Goggans said Crosby was doing his job and was sup­posed to work on the legisla­tion.

Legislators can authorize employees of the Legislative Reference Service to work with lobbyists and others outside of the Legislature on bills. Sen. Roger Bedford, the sponsor of the bill, author­ized Crosby to work with McGregor, according to tes­timony.

When asked if Crosby gave favored treatment to McGregor, Goggans said "none whatsoever."

Goggans said, "The way he did (his job) at times would have devastated Mr. McGregor."
Attorneys introduced evi­dence that demonstrated Crosby drafted legislation that would have hurt McGre­gor financially.

Olshan said Crosby had motive because if the bill did not pass, "his money train would stop."

Thompson said "$3,000 is a pretty strong quid and doing his job is a pretty strong quo."

Espy said McGregor be­gan paying Crosby as a con­sultant in May 2008, well be­fore the alleged conspiracy is supposed to have started in February 2009.

Ross

Ross is accused of extort­ing casino owners and their lobbyists by pushing for campaign contributions lead­ing up to the Senate vote on the gambling bill.

"No one in the world thought Sen. Ross was going to be a 'no' vote," Heldman said.

(Page 4 of 5)

Defense attorneys pointed out that McGregor told Ross he had already given to him, but would encourage his lob­byists to ask their clients to help Ross.

Mark Englehart, an attor­ney for Ross, asked how the senator could be part of a scheme when others involv­ed would not return his calls. Country Crossing developer Ronnie Gilley and his lobby­ist Jarrod Massey, who have both pleaded guilty, testified that they did not return Ross's calls.

Thompson questioned how there was a quid pro quo with Ross if he was going to vote for the bill anyway.

Olshan said Ross intro­duced a competing bill in the 2010 legislative session, when there were just enough votes to pass the bill in the Senate.

Olshan pointed to Jennifer Pouncy, a lobbyist for Mas­sey who has also pleaded guilty, saying there were "veiled threats" from Ross that he would not vote for the legislation.

Englehart said the earliest solicitations by Ross of casi­no owners and their lobby­ists, of those at issue in the case, were not during the legislative session, but were in 2009 before the campaign to pass the bill ramped up.

Englehart said "there is nothing illegal about being aggressive and demanding" when asking for contribu­tions.

"It is legitimate campaign fundraising that the government is trying to criminalize," he said of Ross's calls.

Englehart, as the other de­fense attorneys did, said there was no link to Ross's actions being connected to those of others in the alleged conspiracy.

McGregor

Heldman, as have other McGregor attorneys, said that his client did not try to bribe Mask with a $5,000 contribution, and that McGregor was not aware of a $1 million offer to Sen. Scott Beason and other alleged offers to Preuitt and Means.

Heldman said there was never a discussion of how Mask, R-Wetumpka, would vote.

Geddie and another lobbyist for McGregor delivered two $2,500 checks to a Mask fundraiser the night of a conversation between Mask and McGregor in which they discussed the gambling legislation. McGregor told Mask in a subsequent conversation that he sent the lobbyists to the fundraiser in Tallassee.

(Page 5 of 5)

Thompson said there was circumstantial evidence that McGregor directed Geddie to give Mask the $5,000.

Heldman argued that McGregor did not know about other bribes by Gilley, Massey and Pouncy. But, he said, knowing about a bribe does not constituting aiding and abetting.

Preuitt

Key witnesses for the prosecution, on the witness stand and in wiretapped conversations, have said they offered Preuitt $2 million in campaign contributions, a poll, and other help with his campaign.

Ron Wise, attorney for Preuitt, reminded Thompson of Gilley saying that Preuitt said he did not want his money.

"There is no evidence that anyone offered Jim Preuitt anything in exchange for official action," Wise said.

Pouncy, Gilley and Massey said there was no explicit agreement with Preuitt, Wise said.

Coker

Olshan pointed out that Coker, in wiretapped conversations with McGregor, made references to Gilley and his camp offering country music stars to perform at campaign events for Preuitt.

McKnight said honest services charges against Coker are ridiculous, saying his client is charged with checks being mailed to Crosby, phone calls by McGregor, and the actions of other defendants.