By JOHN BRESNAHAN & MARTIN KADY II
Sen. Ted Stevens, shown Oct. 27 on his way to his trial, was found guilty of failing to report gifts.
Photo: AP
The trial of Sen. Ted Stevens was at times sloppy, chaotic and bogged down in contradictory testimony — but in the end, the federal jury took swift and decisive action in branding the Alaska senator a corrupt politician who violated the trust of his office.
In a historic decision that leaves one of the Senate’s giants in political limbo, Stevens, 84, was convicted on seven counts of failing to report more than $250,000 in improper gifts and home renovations he received from 1999 to 2006. The verdict is a stunning blow to a political career that has lasted more than 40 years and covered Alaska’s entire history as a part of the United States.
Stevens’ lawyers have already started talking about an appeal, but unless he resigns in the coming days, Stevens faces more dire realities: a Nov. 4 reelection bid, a sentencing hearing and potential expulsion from the Senate even if Alaskan voters still decide to return him to Washington.
In a statement on his website, Stevens said he was “obviously disappointed in the verdict but not surprised given the repeated instances of prosecutorial misconduct in this case.”
“I am innocent,” Stevens said. “I ask that Alaskans and my Senate colleagues stand with me as I pursue my rights. I remain a candidate for the United States Senate.”
The prosecution’s successful case relied on e-mails between Stevens and Alaska businessman Bill Allen, former CEO of Veco Corp., the company that carried out the renovations to Stevens’ Girdwood, Alaska, chalet that were never reported in Senate financial disclosures. The Justice Department also relied on testimony from Allen and several of his employees who gave damaging details about doing special favors for the senator.
The Monday morning quarterbacking for Stevens’ high-profile defense team — led by Washington über-lawyer Brendan Sullivan — will center on whether the senator’s own testimony hurt him.
Stevens insisted on taking the witness stand last week and was even warned by Judge Emmet Sullivan that he had no obligation to do so. In two days of testimony, Stevens showed why he has a reputation as one of the most intimidating and hot-tempered members of the Senate. Stevens talked back to prosecutor Brenda Morris and criticized her questions at times, yet tried to portray himself as completely uninvolved in the family finances that revealed the $250,000 in illegal gifts and services.
The Justice Department indicted Stevens on July 29, and Stevens took another huge legal gamble by asking for a speedy trial to resolve the charges before Election Day.
Stevens could be sentenced to up to 35 years in federal prison, although considering his age and lack of previous convictions, he is unlikely to receive anywhere near the maximum sentence. The motions hearing is scheduled for Feb. 25, and Stevens’ attorneys have already told Judge Sullivan they would file motions by early December to overturn the verdict.
Prosecutors were not without their own problems during this trial, and Judge Sullivan scolded them repeatedly about their failure to turn over to defense counsel all the materials and documents they had on Stevens. At one point, Judge Sullivan considered a defense motion to dismiss the charges or order a mistrial after it was revealed that DOJ officials secretly flew one witness back to Alaska without telling the defense team.
But Judge Sullivan, who earned praise from court watchers for his handling of the difficult trial, declined to go along with the defense motion, and he tempered any criticism of prosecutors in his jury instructions despite his clear unhappiness at times with the Justice Department team.
Stevens does have some legal options still open to him.
Sloan, a former federal prosecutor, said federal sentencing guidelines would limit the maximum sentence Stevens receives to somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 to 34 months because the senator does not have any prior convictions. And she said the judge could give Stevens a shorter sentence, in light of his age.
Leading up to the verdict announcement, it wasn’t clear to most observers that this would be a slam-dunk conviction. The verdict came after a tumultuous four days in the jury room. First there were complaints about an unruly juror, then another had to be replaced when she left Washington following the death of her father. Finally, jurors on Monday discovered a discrepancy in the indictment that had been overlooked by prosecutors.
The verdict was also a huge win for the Justice Department — especially Morris, the lead prosecutor in the case, and her team of lawyers and investigators. Simply investigating a lawmaker of Stevens’ standing and reputation was a risky proposition, much less indicting and convicting him.
The heart of the government’s case against Stevens centered on the nearly total overhaul of his Girdwood home during 2000 and 2001. Allen, a close friend of Stevens, turned on him in testimony, saying that Stevens never paid for the renovations or reported them on his annual financial disclosure forms.
Stevens countered that he paid more than $160,000 to other contractors for the home renovation project. Stevens and his wife, Catherine Stevens, said she handled the couple’s finances and that the senator was not closely involved in the remodeling.
The pivotal moment in the proceedings appeared to come when Stevens and his wife took the stand. Both told disjointed stories that failed to follow a cohesive narrative, and prosecutors were able to dissect their claims during cross-examination.
“This case has been a long time coming,” Morris said during her closing comments to the jury. “This trial has exposed the truth about one of the longest-sitting senators.”
Original here
The trial of Sen. Ted Stevens was at times sloppy, chaotic and bogged down in contradictory testimony — but in the end, the federal jury took swift and decisive action in branding the Alaska senator a corrupt politician who violated the trust of his office.
In a historic decision that leaves one of the Senate’s giants in political limbo, Stevens, 84, was convicted on seven counts of failing to report more than $250,000 in improper gifts and home renovations he received from 1999 to 2006. The verdict is a stunning blow to a political career that has lasted more than 40 years and covered Alaska’s entire history as a part of the United States.
Stevens’ lawyers have already started talking about an appeal, but unless he resigns in the coming days, Stevens faces more dire realities: a Nov. 4 reelection bid, a sentencing hearing and potential expulsion from the Senate even if Alaskan voters still decide to return him to Washington.
In a statement on his website, Stevens said he was “obviously disappointed in the verdict but not surprised given the repeated instances of prosecutorial misconduct in this case.”
“I am innocent,” Stevens said. “I ask that Alaskans and my Senate colleagues stand with me as I pursue my rights. I remain a candidate for the United States Senate.”
The prosecution’s successful case relied on e-mails between Stevens and Alaska businessman Bill Allen, former CEO of Veco Corp., the company that carried out the renovations to Stevens’ Girdwood, Alaska, chalet that were never reported in Senate financial disclosures. The Justice Department also relied on testimony from Allen and several of his employees who gave damaging details about doing special favors for the senator.
The Monday morning quarterbacking for Stevens’ high-profile defense team — led by Washington über-lawyer Brendan Sullivan — will center on whether the senator’s own testimony hurt him.
Stevens insisted on taking the witness stand last week and was even warned by Judge Emmet Sullivan that he had no obligation to do so. In two days of testimony, Stevens showed why he has a reputation as one of the most intimidating and hot-tempered members of the Senate. Stevens talked back to prosecutor Brenda Morris and criticized her questions at times, yet tried to portray himself as completely uninvolved in the family finances that revealed the $250,000 in illegal gifts and services.
The Justice Department indicted Stevens on July 29, and Stevens took another huge legal gamble by asking for a speedy trial to resolve the charges before Election Day.
Stevens could be sentenced to up to 35 years in federal prison, although considering his age and lack of previous convictions, he is unlikely to receive anywhere near the maximum sentence. The motions hearing is scheduled for Feb. 25, and Stevens’ attorneys have already told Judge Sullivan they would file motions by early December to overturn the verdict.
Prosecutors were not without their own problems during this trial, and Judge Sullivan scolded them repeatedly about their failure to turn over to defense counsel all the materials and documents they had on Stevens. At one point, Judge Sullivan considered a defense motion to dismiss the charges or order a mistrial after it was revealed that DOJ officials secretly flew one witness back to Alaska without telling the defense team.
But Judge Sullivan, who earned praise from court watchers for his handling of the difficult trial, declined to go along with the defense motion, and he tempered any criticism of prosecutors in his jury instructions despite his clear unhappiness at times with the Justice Department team.
Stevens does have some legal options still open to him.
Robert Cary, a Stevens defense attorney, signaled that the senator would offer a motion for a new trial, which would set aside this verdict, or he could ask for an appeal. Those motions would be ruled on by Judge Sullivan long after Stevens’ political fate is decided, so the Alaska Republican may have lots of time to play out that string.
With his bleak legal and political future, Stevens at least knows he won’t live out his final days penniless should he resign or lose his Senate seat. Thanks to an exemption in Senate rules, the crime of filing false reports is not one of those that would lead to the revocation of a senator’s pension.
Sloan, a former federal prosecutor, said federal sentencing guidelines would limit the maximum sentence Stevens receives to somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 to 34 months because the senator does not have any prior convictions. And she said the judge could give Stevens a shorter sentence, in light of his age.
Leading up to the verdict announcement, it wasn’t clear to most observers that this would be a slam-dunk conviction. The verdict came after a tumultuous four days in the jury room. First there were complaints about an unruly juror, then another had to be replaced when she left Washington following the death of her father. Finally, jurors on Monday discovered a discrepancy in the indictment that had been overlooked by prosecutors.
The verdict was also a huge win for the Justice Department — especially Morris, the lead prosecutor in the case, and her team of lawyers and investigators. Simply investigating a lawmaker of Stevens’ standing and reputation was a risky proposition, much less indicting and convicting him.
The heart of the government’s case against Stevens centered on the nearly total overhaul of his Girdwood home during 2000 and 2001. Allen, a close friend of Stevens, turned on him in testimony, saying that Stevens never paid for the renovations or reported them on his annual financial disclosure forms.
Stevens countered that he paid more than $160,000 to other contractors for the home renovation project. Stevens and his wife, Catherine Stevens, said she handled the couple’s finances and that the senator was not closely involved in the remodeling.
The pivotal moment in the proceedings appeared to come when Stevens and his wife took the stand. Both told disjointed stories that failed to follow a cohesive narrative, and prosecutors were able to dissect their claims during cross-examination.
“This case has been a long time coming,” Morris said during her closing comments to the jury. “This trial has exposed the truth about one of the longest-sitting senators.”
Original here
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment