Rosett on the Wyatt trial

Oscar%20Wyatt%20100507.gifClaudia Rosett is a journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who has written extensively about the U.S. Oil-for-Food program and resulting scandal that recently snared the plea bargain conviction of longtime Houston oilman, Oscar S. Wyatt, Jr. (previous posts here). Rosett attended Wyatt’s trial in New York and this Wall Street Journal op-ed on the aftermath of Wyatt’s plea bargain pretty much confirms my earlier speculation that Wyatt cut a good deal for himself under the circumstances:

Star witnesses facing Wyatt from the stand included two former Iraqi officials, Mubdir Al-Khudair and Yacoub Y. Yacoub. They have never before been questioned in a public setting, and were relocated to the U.S. by federal authorities this past year to protect them against retaliation in Iraq for cooperating in this probe.
Messrs. Khudair and Yacoub described a system corrupt to the core. Their duties inside Saddam Hussein’s bureaucracy consisted largely, and officially, of handling and keeping track of kickbacks. That included who had paid and how much, and via which front companies. When Saddam’s regime systematized its Oil for Food kickback demands across the board in 2000, keeping track of the graft flowing into Saddam’s secret coffers became a job so extensive that the marketing arm of Iraq’s Ministry of Oil, known as SOMO (State Oil Marketing Organization) developed an electronic database to track the flow of the “surcharges,” as they were called.
To show how this worked, prosecutors last week produced a silver laptop onto which Saddam’s entire oil kickback database had been downloaded by Mr. Yacoub, from backup copies he made just before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. With the laptop display projected onto a big screen before the jury, Mr. Yacoub booted up the system and into a query box typed “Coastal,” the name of Wyatt’s former oil company. Up came itemized lists of millions of dollars worth of surcharges he testified that Wyatt’s company, or affiliated fronts, had paid to the Iraqi regime. These were broken down not only chronologically, but according to which front companies Mr. Yacoub said had channeled the money.

Read the entire piece. Brett Clanton of the Chronicle adds this report on how the Wyatt case highlights the perils of doing business in foreign hotspots. Interesting stuff.

Slade elects not to testify

slade%20100507.jpgThe defense rested Thursday in the criminal trial of former Texas Southern University president Priscilla Slade (previous posts here) without the defendant taking the stand in her own defense. Slade told the Chronicle that she felt “wonderful” about the conclusion of her defense, while defense counsel Mike DeGeurin explained on the courthouse steps that “the defendant never testifies if the state has not proven their case. That’s just a given rule.”
Maybe so, but as noted here and here in connection with a couple of other high profile cases, the decision not to testify in white collar criminal cases is risky. Juries in white collar cases expect to hear from the defendant, and when they don’t, they commonly hold against the defendant. That’s not it’s supposed to work, but that’s the reality. As the late Edward Bennett Williams used to advise his white collar criminal clients, “If you elect not to testify, then you better bring your toothbrush with you to the courthouse.”
The prosecution finished its rebuttal portion of its case on Thursday. The jury is off on Friday as the judge and lawyers finalize the jury instructions. Final arguments are scheduled to begin on Monday.

Primers for Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta

golfplated%20scales%20100507.jpgOral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court will take place next Monday on one of the most important business cases of our time — the Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta case involving the issue of secondary liability for companies that do business with a company that commits securities fraud (previous posts here). As usual, Larry Ribstein lucidly explains the importance this case, which could have a material impact on the creation of wealth and jobs in America. This OpinionJournal editorial also does an excellent job of explaining the background of the case.
In anticipation of the oral argument, a couple of excellent webcasts of conferences are taking place this morning discussing the public policy and legal issues invovled in this important case. The Federalist Society and Case Western Reserve Law are sponsoring a conference at Case Western in Cleveland, which will include UCLA Law corporate law expert Stephen Bainbridge and Jim Copland, the director of the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute.
Meanwhile, at 9 a.m. EDT, the American Enterprise Institute Legal Center for the Public Interest in Washington is hosting its own Stoneridge conference that will include as panelists former SEC chairman Harvey Pitt and AEI Legal Center director, Ted Frank.
If you are at all involved or interested in business law, there won’t be many better opportunites to earn CLE credit than watching one or both of these panel discussions.
Update: Point of Law.com provides this eight minute podcast of Jim Copland interviewing Richard A. Epstein on Stoneridge.
Update: The transcript of the oral argument is here and Case Western has provided this handy Stoneridge resource page providing a ton of useful information on the case.

Justice Medina’s big problem

david_medina.jpgWell, you certainly don’t see this everyday:

The June fire that destroyed the Spring home of Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina was intentionally set, the Harris County Fire Marshal’s Office ruled Wednesday.
Investigators would not comment on a motive for the arson, which destroyed a neighboring house and damaged a third, chief investigator Dan Given said Wednesday afternoon.
“At this time, we’re not going to release any more information,” Given said.
Earlier Wednesday, the office issued a statement saying investigators ruled out an accidental cause and no charges were currently pending. [. . .]
Investigators have identified six “people of interest,” all family members or friends of the judge. Investigators have also said a canine detected an accelerant in the fire.
The three homes are in Olde Oaks subdivision in northwest Harris County. Damage for all three has been estimated at $900,000.
Officials said Wednesday that Medina family members questioned about the June 28 blaze have been cooperative. The judge’s wife, Francisca Medina, and one of their children were home the night of the fire, officials said.
Investigators have subpoenaed cell phone and financial records of family and friends.
If a charge is filed, it would be arson of a habitation, a second-degree felony that carries a punishment ranging from probation to 20 years in prison, lead investigator Nathan Green said Tuesday. [. . .]
While officials would not discuss possible motives, Green has said a “red flag” was a foreclosure filed on the property in June 2006 that apparently was resolved that December.
The Medinas’ insurance policy had lapsed because premiums weren’t paid, Green has said. Medina was surprised to learn the 5,000-square-foot house in the 3500 block of Highfalls wasn’t covered.
The Medina family moved to Austin after the fire, Green said.
They still owe nearly $2,000 in homeowners association fees, according to Pam Bailey, owner of Chaparrel Management, which manages the Olde Oaks Community Improvement Association.
Bailey said the fees are two years past due.

The house wasn’t insured and Justice Medina didn’t realize it? In an earlier Chronicle article on the fire, Justice Medina, who was appointed to the high court by Govenor Perry in 2004, said he was unaware that investigators had identified six people of interest, including family members and friends.

“I was not aware. … That’s quite startling,” Medina said, later adding that he had “no idea” if he knew anyone who might have set the house on fire.
He then said, “I’m not going to comment further.”

That latter comment is a very good idea.
October 15, 2007 Update: Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal announces that Justice Medina is not a suspect in the arson investigation:

Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina is not a suspect in a June arson that destroyed his Spring home, Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal confirmed Thursday.
The revelation came during a telephone conversation in which Rosenthal alerted the judge that he was being called to testify before the grand jurors as they discuss whether to charge anyone in the June 28 blaze.
“Because in Harris County, we don’t sneak up on people. I said: ‘You are not considered a suspect,’ ” Rosenthal said late Thursday.

Oscar Wyatt cops a plea

Oscar%20Wyatt%20100207.gif83 year old Houston oilman Oscar S. Wyatt, Jr. ended an ordeal that could have resulted in a life prison sentence yesterday when he agreed to plead guilty (Chron stories here and here) to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in the middle of his ongoing trial in New York City. Wyatt was on trial over charges that he corrupted the United Nationís oil-for-food program by paying paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal kickbacks to Saddam Husseinís regime in 2001 (prior posts here).
Wyatt faces a probable prison sentence of between 18 and 24 months on the one count and he also agreed to forfeit $11 million. The four charges that were dropped in exchange for the guilty plea included conducting financial transactions with an enemy nation (Iraq) and violating a United States embargo on Iraq. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 27.
My sense is that Wyatt cut a reasonably good deal under the circumstances, or at least as good as any deal can be that likely will require a prison sentence. The government had already cut deals with a series of witnesses who had agreed to testify against Wyatt and — let’s face it — it’s hard to think of a less popular criminal defendant in New York City than a wealthy Texas oilman who openly criticized the U.S. State Department’s traditional Middle Eastern policy of supporting Israel. Moreover, although dozens of companies and individuals were cited in the Volcker Report on the scandal-ridden oil-for-food program, it was clear that the Department of Justice was going to make Wyatt the poster boy for the corrupt U.N. program. As Jeff Skilling discovered (see here, here and here), it’s tough enough fighting against the government’s overwhelming prosecutorial power. It’s virtually impossible to defend criminal charges effectively when the government overlays the prosecution with demonization of the defendant.
Ellen Podgor provides insight on the dynamics that may have triggered the deal.

That certainly answers that question

sam%20kent%20120107.jpgThis earlier post wondered what was up with the apparently involuntary four month leave-of-absence of Galveston-based U.S. District Judge, Sam Kent.
Well, now we know.
The Judicial Council of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order Friday reprimanding and admonishing Judge Kent in regard to a complaint complaint of judicial misconduct lodged against the judge on in May alleging sexual harassment toward an employee of the federal judicial system. A former case manager for Judge Kent confirmed to the Texas Lawyer and then the Chronicle that she filed the complaint against the judge, but declined further comment. The former case manager now works in the clerk’s office in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas.
Nevertheless, the prospect of further litigation is definitely possible. The clerk has hired prominent Houston attorney Rusty Hardin, who is always good for a quote or two. “We have been watching, with interest, the investigation,” Hardin told the Chronicle.
Meanwhile, Judge Kent appears to be putting up a fight to the charges. He has hired prominent defense attorney Maria Wyckoff Boyce of Baker & Botts to represent him. My sense is that the brevity of the Judicial Council’s order indicates that the panel expects further litigation over the allegetions.
Fifth Circuit Chief Judge Edith Jones, who is not one to take such matters lightly, signed the order and wrote that a Special Investigatory Committee appointed to investigate the complaint expanded the original complaint and investigated other “instances of alleged inappropriate behavior toward other employees of the federal judicial system.” The committee recommended a reprimand “along with the accomplishment of other remedial courses of action.” The judicial council accepted the recommendations and concluded the proceedings “because appropriate remedial action had been and will be taken, including but not limited to the Judge’s four-month leave of absence from the bench, reallocation of the Galveston/Houston docket and other measures.” The special investigatory committee’s Report, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations, and Judge Kent’s Response to the Report, are confidential and will not be disclosed.
According to the Chronicle account, one of the more interesting allegations apparently investigated by the panel was the following:

“That Kent inappropriately favored former colleagues and other favorites in his decisions and in overseeing settlement negotiations. In 2001, Kent was ordered to transfer all cases from his court that were handled by his best friend.”

H’mm. Wonder if that had any impact on this recent settlement (see background here)?
Update: Ilya Somin provides some additional background on Judge Kent.
And this Galveston Daily News article provides some additional information on the case:

The Daily News was told the judge called his case manager to his office, where physical contact occurred.
When she resisted, he told her she owed him because he had interceded in her favor in a dispute among clerkís office employees, the paper was told.
Since Kent was suspended in August, The Daily News has conducted interviews with more than a dozen members of the legal community ó lawyers, their employees and employees of the court. Some claimed first-hand knowledge of allegations of Kentís misconduct, but none agreed to be identified.
McBroom wasnít the only female employee Kent, who is more than 6 feet tall and more than 200 pounds, is alleged to have touched inappropriately, The Daily News was told. [. . .]
Those arenít the only reports that Kent engaged in inappropriate conduct.
Other sources have told The Daily News that, at a party and in the offices of a law firm, a drunken Kent cornered women and grabbed them.

Legal problem of the day

question_mark.gifAn employee of a client of yours comes to you with a problem. He has been downloading child pornography on his computer in violation of child predator laws. He has not distributed it and has no information that he is under investigation. However, he is quite ashamed of himself and wants to start over. The client leaves the computer with you and asks you to destroy it. What do you do?
Well, according to this article (related NY Times article here), you better be very careful if you decide to do what your client asks:

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Federal prosecutors who charged a prominent attorney with destroying evidence in a child pornography investigation want to use his own words and actions in past cases to show he should have known better
Philip Russell was charged Feb. 16 with destroying a computer that contained child pornography at Christ Church in Greenwich. Russell, a former attorney for the church, is accused of obstructing an FBI investigation that led to the January conviction of the church’s music director, Robert Tate, for possessing child pornography.[. . .]
Russell acknowledges he destroyed the computer, but says he had no reason to believe the matter was under investigation or that it would lead to an investigation.

As the Times article notes, Russell pleaded guilty yesterday to one count of assisting the commission of a felony by failing to report it or by concealing it. Had he continued to fight the charge, he would have stood trial on two counts of obstruction of justice, which could have resulted in a far harsher sentence. Nonetheless, the charge that he pled to is a felony, so Russell still faces the possible loss or suspension of his law license.
Before the plea deal, prosecutors contended that Russell should have given the FBI his client’s computer containing child pornography instead of destroying it. Thus, they accused him of obstructing justice under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which only requires a showing that an investigation was “foreseeable” rather than pending. Russell had ìsubstantial experienceî in such cases and, thus, prosecutors are contending that he knew that a federal investigation “was foreseeable and likely.”
Russell’s lawyer, Robert Casale, contended that the prosecution’s reliance on his clientís positions in past cases to prosecute him in this case has dangerous implications to the defense of defendants’ rights in the American criminal justice system. “In a democratic society that employs an adversarial system of justice, lawyers must be free to zealously advocate their client’s interests without fear of the consequences that their words will someday be used against them personally,” he wrote.
Casale’s point sure sounds right to me.
Update: Ellen Podgor has more.

The Troubles of Sean Jones

Former Houston Oilers defensive end and local sports radio celebrity Sean Jones appears to be in a heap of trouble.

On Monday, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Jones with failing to turn over the records from his defunct “investment advisory” business.

Jones apparently told the SEC that he had discontinued the advisory business in 2004, but the business continued to maintain a Web site until mid-2007 promoting its “wealth management” programs and the fact that the company was “subject to periodic SEC examinations.”

Uh, the current SEC examination is not what I think Jones had in mind.

In June of this year, Jones and four others were indicted on charges of mortgage fraud in U.S. District Court in Houston.

According to the indictment, the defendants conspired to obtain home loans based on inflated property values on behalf of unqualified buyers, then diverted some of the loan proceeds to themselves. Between 1999 and 2001, the prosecution charged Jones and his co-defendants with 12 counts of bank fraud, each of which carries a possible prison sentence of up to 30 years imprisonment and a possible fine of up to $1 million.

Jones’ trial on the criminal charges is currently scheduled for May 12, 2008 before U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein.

Jones is represented by Tom Hagemann and Marla Poirot of Gardere Wynne’s Houston office.

The Lerach deal

Lerach%20091807.jpgFormer class action securities plaintiffs’ lawyer William Lerach finally cut a non-cooperation plea deal (Nathan Koppel’s WSJ Law Blog post is here) to resolve the longstanding criminal investigation into alleged undisclosed payments that Lerach and his firm made to class representatives and co-counsel in cases that they handled.
In certain defense and business circles, there is a fair amount of schadenfreude over Lerach’s demise — he had no reservation about alleging criminal conduct against business executives, such as he did when he claimed that Enron was shredding documents during the early stages of that company’s bankruptcy case (that claim turned out to be wrong).
However, before we get too sanguine about Lerach’s plea deal, let’s not forget the circumstances under which it has been obtained. The 61-year old Lerach was facing a horrifying trial penalty if he chose to fight the charges, and he almost certainly will lose his law license as a result of pleading guilty to a felony. And as Larry Ribstein has repeatedly pointed out, it doesn’t say much for our criminal justice system that the government is paying witnesses to testify against Lerach for the crime of paying his class representative clients. As Larry points out in his most recent post on the matter, the non-cooperation nature of the plea deal does not necessarily mean that the government isn’t providing Lerach some form of hidden incentive for his plea.
Update: Ted Frank argues that Lerach’s plea deal is, all things considered, not so bad for him, after all. On the other hand, Peter Henning is not so sure.

Until Proven Innocent

Until%20Proven%20Innocent.jpgJeffrey Rosen reviews Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson’s book on the angry mob that nearly lynched the lives of several young men in the Duke lacrosse team case:

At least ìmany of the journalists misled by [former DA Mike] Nifong eventually adjusted their views as evidence of innocenceî came to light, the authors conclude. Thatís more than can be said for Dukeís ìactivist professors,î 88 of whom signed an inflammatory letter encouraging a rush to judgment by the student protesters who were plastering the campus with wanted posters of the lacrosse team and waving a banner declaring ìCastrate.î Even when confronted with DNA evidence of the playersí innocence, these professors refused to apologize and instead incoherently attacked their critics. In the same spirit, the authors charge, the president of Duke, Richard Brodhead, fired the lacrosse coach, canceled the season and condemned the team members for more than eight months. The pandering Brodhead, in this account, is more concerned about placating faculty ideologues than about understanding the realities of student life on his raunchy campus.

Does the foregoing remind you of the actions of another group of self-righteous crusaders?