FEDERAL COURT – Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes didn't bribe former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, knew nothing about any money laundering schemes, and can't be sentenced to the 60 years in prison that federal probation officials recommend.
Those are some of the main arguments that lawyers for Wilkes laid out in court papers this week. A federal jury convicted Wilkes in October of giving Cunningham expensive gifts, cash, meals and trips in exchange for lucrative Defense Department contracts.
He is scheduled to be sentenced Feb. 19.
The 36-page court filing by defense lawyer Mark Geragos picks apart the sentencing recommendation from the federal probation officials. That recommendation is not public, but in an earlier court filing Geragos said the probation report recommended that U.S. District Court Judge Larry A. Burns hand Wilkes, 53, what amounts to a life sentence of 60 years in prison.
For example probation officials calculated that Wilkes' company, ADCS Inc., earned a profit of $15.7 million from contracts the company received between 1997 and 2004. Such a large profit elevates the sentence under federal rules.
For example probation officials calculated that Wilkes' company, ADCS Inc., earned a profit of $15.7 million from contracts the company received between 1997 and 2004. Such a large profit elevates the sentence under federal rules.
But Geragos argued the calculation was erroneous and can't be used as a lever to crank up Wilkes' penalty.
Wilkes also was docked for bribing an elected official, handing out more than one bribe, being an organizer or leader of the scheme, and engaging in sophisticated money laundering.
Geragos took issue with those claims in a broad legal attack. In recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has said judges can't impose a sentence based on any factors that were not found to be true, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a jury.
Geragos took issue with those claims in a broad legal attack. In recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has said judges can't impose a sentence based on any factors that were not found to be true, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a jury.
The court has ruled that would be a violation of the fair trial rights of defendants. In Wilkes' case, Geragos argued that the factors cited by probation officials as reason to increase the sentence were not found to be true by a jury.
For example, he said there was no jury finding that Cunningham was an elected official. While that seems an obvious fact, Geragos said that without a specific jury finding, it legally can't be used to increase the sentence. The jury also did not explicitly find there was more then one bribe.
Other parts of the filing largely repeat Wilkes' contention at trial, that he bribed no one and was doing nothing unusual for Washington lobbyists. In the papers, Geragos again flatly denied Wilkes bribed anyone and said that the myriad lavish meals, fancy trips and nice gifts “were typical of lobbyists treating members and not out of the norm.”
Prosecutors are expected to file a response and their own sentencing calculations before the Feb. 19 sentencing.
Meanwhile, Wilkes faces a more immediate problem Monday. Burns has scheduled a hearing demanding that he show why two federal public defenders the judge appointed to represent him in a second bribery case involving CIA officials should not be withdrawn.
On Feb. 1, prosecutors filed papers alleging Wilkes has access to millions of dollars in cash and equity that he could use to pay for lawyers. They also want him to pay back the costs of the public defenders so far.
On a side note: Wilkes' lawyer filed a motion for a new trial.
From White Collar Crime blog:
If the court strips Wilkes of the court-appointed lawyers, then the pending trial will have to be postponed until he retains new counsel, who will have to undergo the requisite background check. Moreover, if the court finds that Wilkes' financial affidavit was false, it could lead to a separate perjury charge and a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice -- although if he receives anything near the recommended sentence for the Cunningham bribery, any additional term won't matter too much. Wilkes has filed a motion for a new trial on the first convictions, arguing that the government violated its Brady obligation and that he was prejudiced by the denial of a continuance. These motions are difficult to win, and the grounds asserted are not the type that usually lead to overturning a verdict. Here is the court filing.
Co-conspirator Joel Combs, nephew of Brent Wilkes, was given immunity by the gov't for exchange for his testimny against Wilkes.
No comments:
Post a Comment