Alalbama: Judge wants October Retrial

Judge wants to retry corruption case in October
Written by Sebastian Kitchen

The judge presiding over the federal corruption trial of VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor and six other remaining defendants is strongly leaning toward beginning the second trial Oct. 3, according to defense attorneys.

The first trial ended with the jury finding two defendants innocent and a mistrial being declared for the other seven when the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.

Prosecutors also want to separate the remaining seven defendants into three trials, said defense attorneys, although the judge denied efforts to separate the trails when defendants pushed for it before the first trial.

Jim Parkman, attorney for Sen. Harri Anne Smith, said the prosecution wants his client to be tried by herself, and for McGregor and former legislative analyst Ray Crosby to be tried together while the other four are prosecuted together.

The other defendants are former state Sens. Larry Means of Attalla and Jim Preuitt of Talladega; lobbyist Tom Coker; and former Country Crossing spokesman Jay Walker.

The seven defendants are accused of participating in a scheme in which casino owners and their lobbyists bribed state lawmakers to support gambling legislation that, if passed by voters, would have allowed VictoryLand, Country Crossing, and other casinos to stay open.The senators were accused of trying to extort campaign contributions from gambling interests as the vote on the gambling bill neared.

A jury acquitted two defendants, state Sen. Quinton Ross of Montgomery and lobbyist Bob Geddie. Three people already have pleaded guilty in the case including Country Crossing developer Ronnie Gilley and two of his lobbyists, Jarrod Massey and Jennifer Pouncy.

While several of the defense attorneys asked for their clients to be tried separately before the beginning of the June 6 trial, which lasted two months and concluded Thursday, Parkman and Walker attorney Susan James said they now oppose separating them.

Parkman said he expected the prosecutors to want to retry all seven remaining defendants, but there was a "little bit of a shock" when they said they wanted to have three separate trials.

(Page 2 of 3)

Parkman and James said Oct. 3 would be a quick turnaround after the two-month trial.
"The court is pushing strongly to go Oct. 3," Parkman said.

James said the defendants have had their lives on hold since before the June trial started, and the trial followed months of listening to thousands of wiretapped conversations and looking at the thousands of documents and filing and arguing motions.

"I think there is a consensus of the defense lawyers that we would prefer having the trial after the first of the year," James said. She said they could then regroup with their families and law practices.

"Unfortunately, we've got other cases we've got to handle," Parkman said.
James and Parkman said that the defense attorneys will meet with prosecutors today and they will talk to Thompson again at 10 a.m. Wednesday.

James said that U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson appeared eager to move forward, telling attorneys while all of the mechanisms, which she believed meant the setup in the courtroom and security, are already in place. During the first trial, the courtroom had to be rearranged and more tables brought in because of the nine defendants and the number of attorneys involved.

James said there are a lot of issues that must be dealt with in pretrial including some evidentiary matters that need to be addressed.

Parkman said there are motions that would need to be filed.

"There is a lot to do to get ready even though we just went through it," James said.

Parkman said having the trial after the first of the year would give them some time to recuperate.

"That's what we were kind of hoping for," he said. " ... We did not feel it would be this quick. The court wants to get this off its docket."

Parkman said he does not expect the issue to be resolved at 10 a.m. Wednesday and that the judge could even listen to oral arguments on the issues.
"He's going to want to move fast," Parkman said.

James said prosecutors suggested they could try McGregor and Crosby in two weeks.
"That puzzles me a little bit," she said.

(Page 3 of 3)

James said they still could convince the judge to move back that October date.

Parkman and James said they also have learned new information that wasn't explored in the first trial, so it wouldn't be as simple as just repeating what they did in the earlier trial.

Prosecutors have not talked to the media throughout the process or during the two-month trial, but defense attorneys said their major argument for having three separate trials was to simplify the case for the jury.

"They said that in substance that the jury had a lot to consider and that they thought there were complicated issues and complicated jury charges and by separating it, it would make it easier to reach a conclusion or a verdict," James said about the prosecution's arguments Monday.

James said she could not remember how many times she asked for a severance from the other defendants leading up to the first trial. She mentioned it regularly during the trial.

"I would have had my severance about November of last year," James said of her original requests for a separate trial. "That's a lot of water under the bridge."
Now, James said they know how the case will unfold, that there could be some evidentiary issues created if the defendants were not tried together, and she said they worked once together with what she said was a "good collective defense approach."

"All of the different personalities brought something to the table," James said.
Given that, Parkman said he was not surprised they wanted to try Smith separately because her case was different from the others.

Parkman said the Smith legal team also filed motions for severance initially.
He said his request was denied and that there are now two fewer defendants, which should make the case easier.

Parkman said they already have been through a trial together, "it worked," and there is no cost effectiveness in separate trials.

"It would be more time consuming," Parkman said.

If the cases are not severed, Parkman said he expects much of the case to be a retread of the first one. He said, especially with prosecutors already knowing his arguments, that he would try a different strategy during the second trial, including putting on a defense.