SEN. TED STEVENS’ TRIAL – October 8, 2008

The EuropeanCourier.org attended on Wednesday, October 8, the

trial of Republican Senator Ted Stevens of the great State of Alaska. I am telling you, Alaska is of a special interest during this year’s political season. We have recently both Alaskan political stars in the spotlight: the Governor, Sarah Palin, and the Senator, Ted Stevens. The Senator is broadly known for sponsoring the “Bridge to Nowhere” project, and the Governor for destroying this pork barrel idea. Both vote for John McCain and both face the election in November.

THE MAIN PLAYERS

Ted Stevens is definitely an interesting persona. Not only he is the longest serving Republican senator, but at the time of the alleged crime he was a Chairman of the Senate’s Appropriations Committee (1997-2001 and 2003-2005), therefore one of the most powerful men in the country. He is a graduate of the Harvard Law School and in the past worked as a U.S. Attorney in Alaska. Sen. Stevens is a very prominent political figure and the former public prosecutor, who allegedly turned a criminal. That gives some dramatic flavor to this case.

Next to him sat Brendan Sullivan, a defense counsel from Williams & Connolly. Mr. Sullivan is a graduate of the Georgetown Law Center, he has over 40 years of litigation experience and is regarded as one of the best defense attorneys in the United States. The Legal Times calls him “the leading lawyer in white collar crimes defense”.  He is also one of the most expensive counsels in America and an average person could not afford Mr. Sullivan’s services. We tried to get hold of Mr. Sullivan, but we quickly learned that he never discusses his cases, when they are pending. Nevertheless, he seemed open to a discussion once the trial is concluded and his client acquitted.

The prosecution team was quite numerous and supervised by Brenda Morris, who also played a key role in the investigation of the Jack Abramoff scandal. She is a graduate of the Howard University Law School and simultaneously teaches a course on public corruption at the Georgetown Law Center. The leading trial prosecutor was Nicholas Marsh, a relatively young trial attorney, who works at the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section and has extensive experience in public corruption cases. Perhaps if he wins this case, a lucrative position is waiting for him at one of the finest law firms in the country. Who knows?

4th MOTION TO DISMISS

The Court started at 9:30 a.m., briefly hearing the prosecution’s explanation as to why the Department of Justice concealed some of the evidence from the defense team and, furthermore, presented to the jury several business documents, which were clearly faulty. It caused the defense counsels to file a 4th motion to dismiss in a row as the concealed evidence was favorable to Sen. Stevens. The prosecution offered some truly shaky explanation that they did not believe the disputed evidence would be later on contested, therefore did not find it relevant to share it.

The U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan eventually denied the motion to dismiss, however stroke the portion of disputed evidence and will tell the jury on Thursday not to take it into consideration. He definitely was not impressed with the prosecutors’ performance and the real doubt arose whether the government properly prepared for the trial. The exhibits in this case amount to several hundred and definitely an intensive and thorough pre-trial preparation was needed to avoid such kind of mistakes. Whether that was done is presently doubtful.

Moreover, the fact that the Judge has stricken important portions of government’s evidence opens a path for the defense counsels to file yet another motion for acquittal, arguing that the prosecution has not proved its case. We shall see in the following days how that plays out.

A SLEEPY TRIAL

The government proceeded to present its case and called its last witness, an FBI agent Mrs. Pluta, who commented on and read loudly the contents of numerous emails and personal correspondence exchanges between Sen. Stevens, Bill Allen and Bob Persons. The evidence showed that Sen. Stevens was quite involved in the construction of a Chalet at his land in Alaska, while the work was organized by a multimillionaire, Bill Allen, and supervised by Bob Persons. Previously, Sen. Stevens claimed that it was rather his wife, who was taking care of the investment and he was not aware of any details.

The construction of said Chalet is one of the main points of contention between the parties and is crucial to the charges against Stevens. It is alleged that Senator did not disclose, in his yearly U.S. Senate Public Financial Disclosure Reports, approximately $250,000 for the work performed and the building materials used to renovate the Chalet in Alaska. The prosecution alleges that those expanses should have been disclosed and qualified as a gift received by Sen. Stevens from Bill Allen. The defense counsel counters that the Senator paid $160,000 for the project and it was a fair price for all the work performed.

The prosecution, furthermore, presented documents showing that Sen. Stevens received in 1999 a generator worth $6,300 to be installed at his premises, for which he did not pay and never disclosed it as a gift in the yearly reports. It is further alleged that he never filed an amended or corrected report to disclose this fact.  

While the government rested its case today, the defense team is to call the former Secretary of State, Colin Powel, as a character witness tomorrow. Secretary Powell does not have any direct knowledge of the substance of the financial dealings between Sen. Stevens and Bill Allen, however, he does know Sen. Stevens personally and is going to attest to his honesty and high moral standards. It is also expected that the Democratic Senator, Daniel Inouye, would give a similar testimony in Sen. Stevens’ favor.

That may play to the defense advantage. Clearly the jury was bored today with the way the prosecution was presenting its case, what was done in a very slow and unenthusiastic way. I had the impression that some of the jurors were taking a nap, while the prosecutor presented numerous emails and correspondence of Sen. Stevens'. I am not sure, how that could affect the jury, however the majority of the jurors were either black or Hispanic, with only two or three white jurors. All of them looked rather unsophisticated, therefore perhaps hearing a testimony from high profile witnesses like Powel and Inouye, who represent ethnical minorities as well, could have some positive influence on them.

Additionally, the prosecution is now in unfavorable light as it came out that they played some dirty tricks with the defense counsels by concealing important documents and knowingly presenting to the jury evidence, which was clearly faulty and misleading (that portion of evidence was stricken by the Judge).

Time will tell whether this trial is going to reshape the political landscape in Alaska and what impact it could have on the Republican Party.

Here is a link to government’s exhibits presented in this case today and stay tuned for more reports on Sen. Stevens' trial.

Sebastian Aulich