Former Los Angeles Metropolis Councilmember Mark Ridley-Thomas, convicted on bribery and fraud prices, has requested a federal decide to discard the jury’s responsible verdicts and grant him a brand new trial within the high-profile corruption case.
Legal professionals for Ridley-Thomas argued in a movement filed this week that prosecutorial misconduct, misstatements of the legislation, and inaccurate and “improper testimony” by the lead FBI agent on the case all disadvantaged the longtime politician of a good trial.
The movement comes greater than a month after a jury discovered Ridley-Thomas, 68, responsible of 4 counts of trustworthy providers wire fraud and one rely every of bribery, conspiracy and trustworthy providers mail fraud. The case stemmed from his time as a member of L.A. County’s highly effective Board of Supervisors and concerned his assist of a contract with USC’s Faculty of Social Work for TeleHealth, a digital psychological well being therapy program run by the college.
Of their verdict, jurors determined that Ridley-Thomas corruptly routed $100,000 from his political marketing campaign fund via USC, then instructed the college to ship the cash to United Methods of California, the place the funds would go towards his son’s new nonprofit.
Jurors acquitted Ridley-Thomas of 12 different fraud prices associated to a scholarship and job his son acquired from USC across the time when the politician was voting on different issues sought by the college.
The cut up verdict immediately ended Ridley-Thomas time period as an L.A. Metropolis Council member and shocked L.A.’s political class, prompting public statements of grief from Mayor Karen Bass and distinguished allies.
This week’s courtroom filings supply the primary window into Ridley-Thomas’ try and keep away from jail and restore his political profession.
Within the movement for a brand new trial, his attorneys contend that “false statements” by the lead FBI agent concerning the TeleHealth contract seemingly tainted the jury’s deliberations.
A pivotal determine within the TeleHealth contract was Dr. Jonathan Sherin, former director of the county’s psychological well being program. At trial, when a prosecutor requested whether or not Sherin had supplied bogus causes for extending the TeleHealth contract with USC, Particular Agent Brian Adkins agreed, explaining that this view was “based mostly on my interview with Dr. Sherin.”
“That is false,” Ridley-Thomas’ attorneys wrote of their submitting this week, explaining that the FBI agent’s notes of his interview with Sherin and a recording of the interview comprise no statements or strategies that the explanations for extending the contract had been disingenuous.
At trial, Adkins later was requested if he noticed “any proof that Mark Ridley-Thomas or his workers threatened to cancel or rescind any contract.” The agent replied that this got here up “throughout interviews.”
Protection attorneys questioned the idea for Adkins’ reply. Based on Ridley-Thomas’ attorneys, prosecutors may solely level to a witness who stated the lawmaker had the overall energy to cancel contracts, not that he threatened to take action on this case.
“Every of those false statements ‘polluted’ the jury’s deliberations,” Ridley-Thomas’ attorneys wrote. “That is significantly so the place the false statements got here from the federal government’s mouthpiece.”
A spokesman for the U.S. lawyer’s workplace in L.A. declined to touch upon the submitting, noting that prosecutors have till Might 22 to formally reply. A listening to on the movement is scheduled for June 26. Marilyn Flynn, the previous dean of USC’s social work program who pleaded responsible to bribery, is scheduled to be sentenced the identical day.
A second submitting this week goes past the request for a brand new trial and seeks an outright acquittal, arguing that prosecutors failed to supply ample proof for every factor of the crimes on which Ridley-Thomas was convicted. That movement walks via key proof within the case and highlights areas the place the protection claims the required bar wasn’t cleared.
For instance, protection attorneys say that there is no such thing as a proof of an “official act” that Ridley-Thomas did in reference to the TeleHealth modification, because the contract was on the consent calendar, however no witness clearly testified to the way it was voted on, and an electronic mail to a deputy concerning the contract “is inadequate to represent an official act.”
Each motions are thought-about authorized lengthy photographs. Within the faculty admissions case, a federal decide in Boston final 12 months granted a brand new trial to a former USC water polo coach, discovering that prosecutors erred of their argument.
Of their movement for a brand new trial, attorneys for Ridley-Thomas additionally accused the federal government of “vouching,” or bolstering witness statements or proof with the “status of the federal government,” and improperly inserting their opinions.
The movement recognized not less than eight remarks throughout closing arguments wherein protection attorneys declare that prosecutors revealed their private opinions — by saying “nonsense” or “it’s so crystal clear” or “there is no such thing as a doubt.”
The protection attorneys additionally took challenge with Adkins’ description of Ridley-Thomas’ dealings with Flynn, the previous dean: “Sooner or later in the summertime of 2017, that relationship appeared to show corrupt,” the FBI agent testified.
Legal professionals argued that the final 4 phrases — appeared to show corrupt — went past an FBI agent describing his investigation and as an alternative confirmed Adkins improperly injecting his opinion earlier than the jury.
“He impermissibly opined each on the legislation and on Dr. Ridley-Thomas’s guilt, and he did so on the prompting of the federal government,” attorneys wrote.
Though U.S. District Choose Dale Fischer issued a jury instruction noting an occasion of Adkins’ shifting testimony, the decide didn’t challenge a separate instruction on the alleged improper vouching, nor did Fischer strike it from the trial transcript.
Of their movement, protection attorneys say the decide erred by not issuing a “healing instruction” or placing the testimony, which “unfairly prejudiced Dr. Ridley-Thomas.”
