Here’s the scenario: A city councilman takes $1,000 a month, cars, cell phones, and other goodies for over 3 years (total of over $35,000) from a businessman who has issues coming before the city council. Said councilman never declares any of the money on the financial disclosure forms required by the state or city.
The councilman gets caught and goes to trial in federal court (he refuses a plea bargain). The judge moves the trial to a different city to ensure a fair and impartial jury. The defense appears to be:
The money, etc. were gifts from the businessman to a friend.
The councilman claims it never influenced his vote.
The councilman (who is black) has done so much working for civil rights that there should be no question of his ethics. It’s all a white plot to “keep the man down”.
The councilman “forgot” to put the money down on his financial disclosure forms and pleads guilty to the oversight.
After a 2 week trial, the jury deliberated for 3.5 hours before finding him guilty on all counts of bribery. The councilman’s supporters were “shocked” and were outraged that the all-white jury could have come to that decision. If the trial had been held in the councilman’s hometown, they claim, he would have been found innocent.
The 74-year old councilman is now facing jail time (no probation possible under the sentencing guidelines federal judges are required to follow). His supporters again invoke the councilman’s past actions to excuse the behavior and cite the age and health of the councilman for reasons he should not go to jail.
The article describes evidence by which a rational jury could have found him guilty. The jurors were in the best position to hear testimony and judge credibility.
I can’t say what my decision would have been, but theirs seems perfectly reasonable.
If the giver really was a “friend”, the councilman should have abstained from any votes that involved the giver.
Our criminal system is based upon “reasonable doubt”. While the councilman tried to raise doubt in the jurors’ minds, obviously he could not have raised a reasonable doubt in one of the twelve.
Hmm. I don’t have any friends who give me money (aside from one time they buy me a beer, the next time I buy them a beer, that kinda small change)… nor have I ever been given a car, or a portable phone, by a friend.
I guess I have the wrong friends.
I’d guess that most folks on a jury would feel the same way.
And “forgot to file” has never been much of an excuse. Oh, sorry, I forgot to file my income tax forms… Ooops, I overlooked that $35K income when I did my taxes… Yeah, right.
I also find the “I’ve done lots of good, therefore excuse this indiscretion” a pretty weak argument. Hey, I know a multi-millionaire, he’s donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to worthy causes, does that mean it’s OK for him to cheat on his income tax? … Is their answer, only if he’s black?
When I’m visiting my parents, I can usually get my mom to cough up a few bucks for gas, but nobody’s every given me a G per month as a gift. The guy’s corrupt. No doubt about it. The fact that he used the “You’re all racists” defense ( :rolleyes: ) further cinches it as far as I’m concerned. Ad hominem attacks are the tool of people with no evidence on their side.
–It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats.