William Jefferson appeal cites three ‘insurmountable problems’ with corruption trial

Attorneys for former U.S. Rep. William Jefferson asked a Virginia appellate court Monday to either overturn his 2009 corruption conviction or order a new trial, arguing that the government’s case and the trial judge’s legal interpretations raise “insurmountable problems.”

Jefferson, 64, was sentenced to 13 years in prison after the jury verdict that centered on charges that the congressman solicited payments from executives in return for his help winning contracts in Nigeria and several other Western African nations between 2000 and 2005. He remains free pending resolution of the appeal.

Jefferson’s lawyers, led by his new appellate counsel Lawrence Robbins and Robert Trout, his chief attorney for the District Court trial, make three major arguments in their brief:

That Ellis erred by defining an “official act” in terms of the bribery statute as meaning “activities that have been clearly established by settled practice as part of a public official’s position.” That interpretation is too vague to pass legal muster, his lawyers said.

That Ellis erred by saying the quid pro quo required to convict an official for bribery may be proved by showing that Jefferson intended to be influenced in the performance of unspecified official acts on an “as needed basis.” That definition runs afoul of a recent Supreme Court ruling that found prosecutors must show the official received compensation or a gift for a “specific official act,” his lawyers wrote.

That the judge’s instructions on the honest services wire fraud statute were  made before the Supreme Court in June limited enforcement of the statute to instances of bribery and kickbacks. Jefferson was accused of violating the statute, in part, for not disclosing to foreign and federal officials that he and his family stood to benefit financially if the projects he was pushing moved forward.

The brief doesn’t mention the $90,000 that FBI agents found stuffed in the freezer of Jefferson’s Washington D.C. home. That could be because on the one charge most related to the cash — that Jefferson intended to use the money to bribe the then vice president of Nigeria to facilitate a telecommunications project Jefferson was championing — the jury found him innocent.

Two jurors later said that the charge, violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, was unproven in the minds of at least two jurors because they believed he intended to keep the money himself, rather than turn it over to the Nigerian government official.

And that’s not the crime he was accused of. Read more at www.nola.com