Judge slams motives of government witnesses in public corruption trial

In a 43-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, the federal judge says two government witnesses were racially and politically motivated to become whistle-blowers for an alleged vote-buying scheme to pass pro-gambling legislation in Alabama.

Thompson, who recently presided over the highly publicized public corruption trial, released last Thursday a ruling outlining evidence and hearsay statements that will be admissible during the January retrial of seven individuals, including legislators and businessmen, indicted in September 2010 for their alleged participation in a scheme to buy votes in exchange for the passage of the pro-gambling legislation known as SB 380.

Thompson, in 11 of the 43 pages, disputes the government's portrayal of prosecution witnesses, state Sen. Scott Beason and state Rep. Benjamin Lewis, who worked with authorities to identify and gather evidence during the initial investigation.

"As a preliminary matter, the court finds that Beason and Lewis lack the credibility that the government sought to establish. The evidence introduced at trial contradicts the self-serving portrait of Beason and Lewis as untouchable opponents of corruption. In reality, Beason and Lewis had ulterior motives rooted in naked political ambition and pure racial bias," Thompson wrote in the ruling.

Thompson said both legislators lack credibility because "their motive for cooperating with F.B.I. investigators was not to clean up corruption but to increase Republican political fortunes by reducing African-American voter turnout. Second, they lack credibility because the record establishes their purposeful, racist intent."

According to Thompson, both legislators wanted to prevent the passage of pro-gambling legislation because failure to place a statewide gambling referendum on the ballot would lower the black turnout for the 2010 midterm elections, giving Republicans an upper hand.

"One of the government's recordings captured Beason and Lewis discussing political strategy with other influential Republican legislative allies. A confederate warned: ‘Just keep in mind if (pro-gambling) bill passes and we have a referendum in November, every black in this state will be bused to the polls. And that ain't gonna help,'" Thompson said.

In his interpretation of Beason and Lewis's motives for working with the government, Thompson said Beason's and Lewis's statements demonstrate a deep-seated racial animus and a desire to suppress black votes by manipulating what issues appeared on the 2010 ballot.

"Lawmakers who harbor such sentiments lack the integrity expected from elected officials," he said.

Despite a belief the legislators lack credibility, Thompson said it his opinion that enough evidence exists for both men to offer co-conspirator statements during a retrial.

"Just as the racist statements of the government's witnesses speak for themselves, much of the evidence against the defendants stands on its own," his ruling states.

But in analyzing the evidence, Thompson said his finding "says nothing about whether the government has satisfied the much higher burden of proving the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the jury's province."

Thompson found that a preponderance of evidence existed for not only Lewis and Beason to testify, but also that recordings and testimony linking VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor and state Sen. Harri Anne Smith to the scheme should be admissible in a new trial.

"The evidence indicates that McGregor was aware that Gilley was offering funds from his loan to lawmakers in the form of illicit bribes," Thompson wrote.

In analyzing the "preponderance of evidence" offered, Thompson said enough evidence exists to implicate Smith in the scheme at an early stage.

"In February, Smith tipped off Gilley and McGregor that it was the perfect opportunity to buy Beason's vote because he had lost some of his prior financial support," the ruling states.

Thompson said it is not illegal for legislators to lobby one another for different legislation, but evidence against Smith, according to Thompson, shows she was more motivated more by money than "the merits of any piece of legislation."

"Smith was willing to sell not simply her vote, but her office, to the interests that financed her campaign," the ruling states.

Thompson said his opinion is based "on the less-demanding preponderance-of-the-evidence standard" and should in no way be construed as an opinion of guilt or innocence.

"That determination is with the province of the jury and is not for the court to decide," Thompson's ruling states. "Indeed, if the applicable standard here were beyond a reasonable doubt, the court might very well reach contrary findings regarding these defendants' participation in the alleged conspiracy."