Lawyers for Brent Wilkes are arguing that Wilkes never bribed Cunningham, “knew nothing about any money laundering schemes, and can’t be sentence for 60 years”.
Their reasoning? Although it seems like an “obvious fact,” they claim that a jury never explicitly concluded that “Cunningham was an elected official..”
Their reasoning? Although it seems like an “obvious fact,” they claim that a jury never explicitly concluded that “Cunningham was an elected official..”
And here is the latest in Wilkes case:
SAN DIEGO – A clearly perturbed federal judge on Monday warned Brent Wilkes, already facing a lengthy prison sentence for bribing Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, that he could be in more trouble if he lied to the court about his finances in order to get free lawyers to defend him in a second case.
U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns said he would allow prosecutors to review a document Wilkes submitted to the judge under seal.
Wilkes offered the affidavit in the summer to persuade Burns to appoint two federal public defenders to represent him in an upcoming trial on conspiracy and fraud charges. Prosecutors say Wilkes has access to more than $1 million in assets and equity in property, a contention that appears to be based on documents from Wilkes' divorce proceedings in state court.
Burns said if he is convinced prosecutors are correct and Wilkes did not tell the truth, it could have an effect on Wilkes' sentencing and whether he continues to remain free on bond after his conviction.
“If I've been lied to I want to know that,” a stern Burns said. “I want to know that now.” He said a second hearing would be scheduled in which prosecutors would present their information in detail and he would determine if Wilkes' claims of poverty were bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/cunningham/20080211-1751-bn11wilkes.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/cunningham/20080211-1751-bn11wilkes.html
1 comment:
Wilkes is making a complete fool of the Justice System and the Judge. It's old school with getting a divorce to protect the money. I notice his funds weren't frozen when he was changed, looks like both the Federal lawyers and the Judge at the time are helping the Defendant. Laws were put in place many years ago when Defendants charged with fraud couldn't hide their money with a divorce. Now as for the jurors not knowing Duke was an elected official even an idiot would ask what does that have to do with the crimes Wilkes did. I must say the Federal Lawyers did a great job of not charging Wilkes with the Rico Act and Prostitution. As he did both. Now two thumbs up for the smart move to shift the prostitution to Ms. Palfrey buy leaking her business to the media, knowing she had nothing to do with Wilkes. Yes it worked as the reporters and the public thought it was the so called DC Madam but of course the Federal Lawyers knew Wilkes had hired prostitutes and was using respectful Hotels as his front.
Post a Comment