Charges of Bribery and Fraud Against John Wiley Price May Be Tossed Before Jury Gets Case

The federal judge overseeing the John Wiley Price public corruption trial expressed some skepticism Monday morning about a large chunk of the government's case against the veteran Dallas County Commissioner, and she could throw out bribery and fraud charges before the jury gets to deliberate.In criminal cases, a jury decides guilt or innocence. But the judge decides whether prosecutors presented enough evidence to even place such charges before a jury.U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn will rule late Monday afternoon about which accusations from the indictment the jurors will get to consider. On Tuesday morning, jurors will hear closing arguments from both sides based on that decision.Lynn said Monday morning that, after seeing all of the government's evidence during eight weeks of trial, she was "troubled" by the bribery and honest services charges against Price that make up seven of the 11 counts against him.She said that sometimes judges will allow the jury to sort out the evidence and the charges. But she said too much is at stake in this case and that it's her job to decide whether prosecutors presented enough evidence for the jury to determine guilt or innocence on certain charges - before jury deliberations begin.Assistant U.S. Attorney Leigha A. Simonton told Lynn that if she throws out the government's bribery and fraud case against Price, the office would go to the U.S. Solicitor General to appeal that decision before the jury can begin its deliberations.Lynn appeared taken aback by that, saying she's never been told that before in her career as a judge. It would mean the trial would come to a sudden halt while the appeal is heard.Price currently faces one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and six counts of deprivation of honest services by mail fraud. The other four counts against him deal with tax evasion. Price's chief of staff, Dapheny Fain, is charged with helping Price with his alleged scheme.Prosecutors say Price and his former political consultant, Kathy Nealy, engaged in a conspiracy from 2001 to 2011 in which Price took official actions like votes to help Nealy's clients in return for a "stream of benefits" that included cash, vehicles and land. As prosecutors put it during the trial, Nealy essentially had Price "on retainer."Nealy will be tried on bribery charges after the Price trial.The conspiracy charges allow prosecutors to get around legal restrictions on how long they can wait before bringing charges, known as the statute of limitations.Lynn said prosecutors did not show a clear agreement between Price and Nealy about a scheme involving bribes for official action. To prove bribery, prosecutors must show there was an agreement for a quid pro quo - something for something. Defense attorneys say the jury saw no evidence of that. Government evidence did not include electronic recordings between the two co-defendants. It was mostly circumstantial, based on the timing of banking transactions."People get to make payments to public officials," and the officials can vote for matters benefiting the giver, Lynn said.The prosecution team said an agreement doesn't always have to be verbal or in writing. It could be conduct, gestures or inferred by a jury based on circumstantial evidence, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas Bunch.But Lynn noted that the evidence showed that Price did not always vote in favor of Nealy's clients."He doesn't always do what she wants," Lynn said.Simonton said just because Price didn't always vote in Nealy's favor, it doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy.Lynn said that means the government could theoretically look at all of Price's conduct during his more than three decades in office. She said she was concerned about "this long look backwards without getting close to quid pro quo language."Price attorney Shirley Baccus-Lobel said that if breaks occur in the alleged stream of benefits, the charges must be thrown out due to how old they are."Conspiracies do not hibernate," she said.But Simonton said a jury can find someone guilty of conspiracy even though there are long periods of time in which nothing happens.Lynn also said prosecutors did not make a good case that the alleged conspirators used the U.S. mail as part of their crimes. Mail fraud most be proven in order to show deprivation of honest services in this case, Lynn said. Prosecutors said the fraud occurred when Nealy mailed her payments for vehicles she allowed Price to use. But Lynn seemed to agree with the defense that such payments were incidental to the alleged scheme and not fraudulent because Nealy had title to the vehicles.But Simonton said the mailings were "part of the bribery."Lynn also struggled to see how the jury could find Price guilty of deprivation of honest services if they found him not guilty of bribery, which is what the government wants. If Price's vote is for sale, how could it be deprivation of honest services when it's not bribery? Lynn asked.  Continue reading...