1543 - Smith Acquittal

8/6/2019 1543 - Smith Acquittal

1/11

INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEMIDDLEDISTRICTOFALABAMA

NORTHERNDIVISIONUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA, *

V. * CRIMINALACTIONNO: 2:10cr186-MHTHARRIANNEH.SMITH, *DEFENDANT. *

SMITHSMOTIONFORJUDGMENTOFACQUITTAL

ComesnowtheDefendant,HarriAnneSmith,byandthroughherundersignedattorney,

andsubmitsthismotionforjudgmentofacquittalatthecloseoftheGovernmentscasepursuant

toFed.R.Crim.P.29. PertheCourtsinstruction,thisresponsedoesnotfocusonthepertinent

legalauthority,butinsteadonthefactsastheyrelatetothechargeswithintheindictment.Smith

herebyadoptstheargumentsmadeinSMITHSRESPONSETOUNITEDSTATESSUBMISSIONAS

TOSUFFICIENCYOFEVIDENCEASTOCOUNTONEandfurtherherebyreservestherightadopt

allargumentsofeachco-defendant.

I. Count Two: 18 u.s.c. 666(a)(2) & (2):

Federal programs bribery and aiding and abetting

Count Two charges Smith, along with Gilley and Massey with offering over $200,000 in

campaign contributions to Benjamin Lewis in exchange for his favorable vote on electronic bingo

legislation.

Smith adopts the argument that the Government has failed to prove the coverage elements of

this statute as discussed in the argument of Milton McGregor, including agent status, receipt of federal

funds, business as not including the drafting and voting on legislation, and involvement of a thing of

Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT -WC Document 1543 Filed 07/26/11 Page 1 of 11


2/11

value > $5,000. Smith further adopts the argument that Section 666 does not cover campaign

contributions or other electoral support, but that even if Section 666 does cover such support the

evidence lacks any explicit quid pro quo.

This allegation centers on the events of March 4, 2009 at Garretts Restaurant. Lewis never

indicated Smith was involved in any illegal offer. Instead, LewistestimonycenteredonwhatLewis

perceivedasGilleysillegaloffers.AccordingtoLewis,Smithsonlyinvolvement(whichisnot

evensubstantiatedbyanyotherGovernmentwitness)wastotellGilley,afterinquiryfromGilley,

that Lewis campaign had previously cost $150,000 and to comment that it was going to be

difficulttoraisemoneyathomeduringthenextelection.

Lewisadmittedthat Smithneverofferedhim anymoneyin exchange forhisvote,and

neverspecificallytoldhimheshouldvoteacertainway.Lewisalsotestifiedthatatthetimehe

wenttothereporttheincidenttotheauthoritieshewasnotfocusedonSmith,butratheron

Gilleysactivitiesfromthatevening.ThereisnoindicationSmithhadGilleysauthoritytomake

Lewisany offerandnoevidence that Smithparticipated inany offer. Gilleysown testimony

establishesSmithcouldnothavebribedLewisoraidedorabettedGilleyinabribebecauseGilley

hadnointenttobribeLewisthatevening.

Fortunately,LewisrecordsaconversationwithSmithonlythreeweekslateronMarch24,

2009 inwhichSmithexplainsher reasoning for supporting the CountryCrossingprojectand

legislationallowingit,whileencouragingLewisthatyougottafeelinyourheartlikeIdo.You

dontfeelinmyhear...,youdontfeelinyourheartlikeIdothenyoudontneedtovoteforit.(J-

15,p.28,l.19).Suchaconversationdoesnotsupportallegationsofa quidproquo.Inthesame

call, Lewis admits Smith said that shewas not telling him how to vote. She also made the

commentthatshewasgoingtovoteforit,buthedidnthavetoandthatsheevenhopedhedidnt

have to vote on the 2009 bill. The call confirms it was Smiths position that she feltmore



3/11

comfortablewithhavingthepeoplevote.(J-15P.26,L.13).

AslateasFebruary10,2010,Lewisopinion,asrelayedtoScottBeason,wasthatSmith

hada goodargument. This inadvertentrecording alsodetailstheGovernmentsattempts to

convinceLewisthatSmithhadacorruptintent,despitehisstatementstothecontrary.(J-503A).

Forthereasonsstatedherein,theevidenceisinsufficientastoCountIIoftheindictment.

II. Count14:18u.s.c.666(a)(1)(B)&2:

Federalprogramsbriberyandaidingandabetting

UnderCount14oftheindictment,Smithischargedwithcorruptlysoliciting,demanding,

accepting,andagreeingtoacceptsomethingofvalueintendingtobeinfluencedandrewardedfor

anofficialactonherbehalf.ThisbehaviorallegedlyoccurredfromDecember2009untilMarch

2010.

In addition to disputingtheGovernment hasproved thestatutory coverage elements,

thatshewasanagentoftheStateofAlabama,andthattheStateofAlabamareceivedbenefitsin

excessof$10,000fromfederalprograms,thefactsaspresentedbytheGovernmentfailtoprove

thesubstantiveelementsofthischarge.

TheindictmentspecificallyallegesSmithsolicitedandagreedtoacceptatleast$400,000

forhercampaignfromGilley.ThereisnoevidencethatSmithdemanded,solicited,oragreedto

acceptthisamountfromGilley.Asitrelatestothe10for10fundraiser,theevidenceindicates

Smithwaswhollyunawareoftheamountofin-kindcontributionsGilleywouldattributetothe

fundraiseruntilafterthefact.TheevidencefurtherindicatesGilleyonlypersonallycontributed

$19,500toSmithscampaignduringthetimeofthe10for10fundraiser(excludingin-kind)

with othermoney coming fromPACs. Gilley takescredit for $30,000 contributed to Smiths

campaignfromaPACtowhichhehadnotyetcontributedinJanuary2010.(Masseyclaimsthat

Smith received $25,000 in December 2009 from a PAC to which Gilley had previously



4/11

contributed,althoughGilleyprovidednosuchtestimony,andthereisnoevidenceSmithknew

theoriginalsourceofthecontribution.)TheonlyevidenceGilleycouldprovidethatSmithwas

awarethatthe$30,000wassupposedlyattributabletoGilleywashisclaimthatshethankedhim

for the contribution, although he could not remember any of the conversation. Gilley later

admittedtheonlytimesheactuallyspecificallyrememberedSmith thankinghimwasin2008

afterallegedlyreceiving$23,000forhercongressionalcampaign,andonNewYearsEve2009,

whichwaspriortotheJanuary2010PACcontributions.

A call from Smith to Gilley on the evening of March 11, 2010 is the basis for the

Governments allegation Smith corruptly solicited and agreed to accept at least $400,000.

Luckily,thiscallisrecordedtopreventanymischaracterization.Therecordingmakesclearthat

GilleyhaspreviouslyrepresentedtoSmithhehadpeopleinterestedincontributingtoSmiths

campaign. ThereisnodiscussionofGilleyhimselfcontributinganyadditionalmoneytoSmith.

AtthefirstmentionbySmithofGilleyspreviousrepresentationofthesepotentialcontributors,

GilleyinterruptstoconfirmSmithsimpressionoftheirpreviousconversation.

ItisGilleywhothenasksSmithhowmuchsheneeds.SmithrespondsbyadvisingGilley,

Weneedanother400,000tofinishoutthecampaign.. .Andit,andanythingyoucanhelpwith

thatwill beappreciated. (J-172)There isabsolutelynomentionofSB380orany legislation

duringthisconversation.

Briberyrequiresaspecific quid pro quo or explicit promise or undertaking by the official to

perform or not to perform an official act. UnitedStatesv.Siegelman640F.3d1159,1170(11thCir.

2011).No generalized expectation of some future favorable action will do. Siegelman at 1171. An

agreement to assist in the future in exchange for a campaign contribution is not enough. According to

Siegelman, at the time the contribution is accepted, a specific official act has to be agreed upon. A

close in time relationship between the donation and the act will not suffice. Id.



5/11

III. Count21:18u.s.c.1951&2:

Extortionandaidingandabetting

TheHobbsActprohibitsextortion,andattemptsorconspiraciestoextort,thatinanyway

or degree obstruct[ ], delay[ ], or affect[ ] commerce or the movement of any article or

commodityincommerce.18U.S.C.1951(a).CommerceisdefinedintheActasallcommerce

between any point in a state ... and any point outside thereof. 18 U.S.C. 1951(b)(3). Two

essentialelementsforHobbsActprosecutionareextortionandaneffectoncommerce. United

Statesv.Kaplan,171F.3d1351(11thCir.1999).

TheindictmentallegesSmithsolicitedandpressuredGilleytoprovideatleast$400,000

whichmoneywasnotdueSmith.Aspreviouslystated,itisclearfromtherecordingofMarch11,

2010thatitwasGilleythatfirstmentionedadditionalcontributionstoSmith.Smithwassimply

respondingtoGilleyspriorrepresentations.ThereisnoevidenceofanypressureonGilley,and

noevidenceofSmithrequestinganyspecificamountsimplystating,anythingyoucanhelpwith

thatwillbeappreciated.

Even if Smith is found to have solicited the contributions, there was no pressure as

alleged.SmithisawareofUnitedStatesv.Williams,621F.2d123(5thCir.1980)whichheldthat

aconvictionforextortioncanstandonafindingthatpropertywasunlawfullyobtainedeither

undercolorofofficialofficeorthroughforceorduress.Idat124.Thelanguage,undercolorof

official right, is consonant with the common law definition of extortion, which could be

committedonlybyapublicofficialtakinga feeundercolorofhisoffice,withnoproofofthreat,

forceorduressrequired...Thecoerciveelementissuppliedbytheexistenceofthepublicoffice

itself.Id.

However,thecurrentcaseisdistinguishablefromWilliams,whichinvolvedaschoolboard

member acceptingcashand planetickets fromacontractor thatdid businesswith the school



6/11

board. Thesepersonal benefits are completely different from campaign contributions. If the

holdinginWilliamswasextendedtocampaigncontributions,everycampaignsolicitationwould

beextortion.

In the context of campaign contributions, there is a requirement of coercion in the

solicitation of the contribution. This coercion, in the context of campaign contributions, is

exhibitedthroughtheshowingofanexplicitquidproquoasrequiredbyMcCormickv.United

States,500U.S.257,111S.Ct.1807(1991).

Inthecurrentcase,thereisnoquidproquo,butinsteadevidencetothecontrary.Smith

cementedherpositioninfavoroftherightofthepeopletovote,andinfavorofCountryCrossing

inApril2008,priortoevermeetingGilley.Thispositionremainedconsistentdespitethefactshe

wouldloseothercontributorsbecauseofthedesiresofherconstituents.Nogovernmentwitness

hastestifiedthatSmithhadevergiventheslightestindicationthatshewouldnotvoteinfavorof

apublicreferendumonelectronicbingo.

Inaddition to failing toprove anyquidpro quo, the Government has failed toprove a

specificconnectionbetweenSmithsactionsandinterstatecommerceasrequiredbytheHobbs

Act. Thus,inaprosecutionundertheHobbsAct,itisnecessarytoshowanexusbetweenthe

extortionateconductandinterstatecommerceinordertoestablishfederaljurisdictionthisisa

necessary element of the crime. United States v.Gupton, 495 F.2d 550 (5th Cir. 1974). The

prosecutormust prove definiteconnectionwith commerce ineveryHobbsAct case and have

failedinthisinstance,andCount21shouldbedismissed.

IV. Count23-33:18u.s.c.1341,1343,1346&2:

Honestservicesfraudandaidingandabetting

SmithherebyfurtheradoptsandpreservesallargumentsraisedinMcGregorsMotionfor

JudgmentofAcquittal asit relatesto the honestservicescounts. Smithisonlyallegedtobe



7/11

involvedinCount26andCount33.

Count26involvestheallegationthatonMarch24,2010SmithcausedFourchecks,each

intheamountof$50,000...tobemailedfromHoustonCounty,Alabama,tofourseparatePACs

inHuntsville,Alabama.Noevidencehasbeenpresentedthatthesecheckswereevermailed,

andcertainlynoevidencetheyweremailedfromanyparticularcounty.TestimonyfromRonnie

Gilley was that it was his belief that the checks were hand delivered by a representative of

GilleystoSmithatapartyonMarch24,2010.Thesechecksweresubsequentlydepositedinto

PACcheckingaccountsseveralweekslater.Thegovernmentattemptstorelyontestimonyofthe

PACpresidentthattheordinarypatternandpracticeofhisofficeistoreceivechecksinthemail,

buthehadnospecificknowledgeofthesefourchecksinquestion.WhilethePACmayhavebeen

usedtoreceivingchecksinthismanner,noevidencehasbeenprovidedthatSmithscampaign

routinelysentchecksinthismanner,orthatthisPAChadeverreceivedmoneyinthismanner

from either Gilley or Smiths campaign in the past. This pattern and practice testimony is

insufficientevidencetoprovetheseparticularfourcheckswereevermailed.

Count33 allegesthatonMarch 22,2010,SmithandGilley engagedin a telephone call

fromTennesseetoAlabamaconcerningtheneedtogathervotesinsupportofthebill.Smith

adoptstheargumentsprovidedbyMcGregorrelatedtoCounts33inthatsuchacallwasnotin

furtheranceofanyconspiracy,bribeandfraud.SmithalsoallegesfailurebytheGovernmentto

provetheelementsofthiscountaschargedasthereisnoevidenceofanycallfromTennessee.

As Smith is not even alleged to have known or have been involved in the allegations

contained within Counts 23-25, and 27, these counts as they relate to Smith are due to be

dismissed. There isnoindicationSmith had anyknowledgeofanypaymentsbyMcGregor to

Crosbyoranyreasontoknowsuchpaymentswouldexist.Siegelmanat1174.Thissamelogicas

expressedinSiegelmanwouldapplytothephonecallsofMcGregorcontainedinCounts28-32,



8/11

andSmithfurtheradoptstheargumentsofMcGregorastothesecountsthatthesecallscannotbe

interpretedtocontainanyillegality.

V. Count34-37:18u.s.c.1956(a)(1)(B)(I)&2:

Moneylaunderingandaidingandabetting

Becausetherewasnobribery,extortion,orhonestservicesfraud,theCourtshould

enter judgmentofacquittal onall money launderingcounts asmoney laundering requires a

financialtransactiondesignedtoconcealanddisguisetheproceedsofanunlawfulactivity.If

thereisnounlawfulactivity,thereisnomoneylaundering.

EvenifthereweresomeknowingunlawfulactivityonthepartofSmith,theevidencefails

toestablishthecrimeofmoneylaundering.TestimonywasprovidedthatcontributionstoPACs

are completely legal inAlabama. Further testimony indicates that all contributionsmade by

Gilleyduringtheperiodinquestionweremadethroughpoliticalactioncommittees,justaswith

manyothercompaniessuchasAlabamaPower.ThepurposeofplacingthemoneythroughaPAC

wasnottodisguiseanybribe,butinsteadtoprotectthedonorsidentityfromothersolicitations,

andforpublicrelationspurposesforthecandidate.

Infact,oncethemoneyissenttothePAC,thedonorlosescontrolofthemoneyandcannot

requirethePACtoforwardittothecandidateofthedonorschoosing.WhilethePACmayassent

tothedonorswishes,thereisnoguaranteebecausethePACdistributionsarewithinthesole

discretionofthePACadministration.

In this case,whiletheMarch11,2010conversationbetweenSmithandGilley indicates

Gilleysintenttogather$400,000incontributionsforSmithscampaign,thereisnoevidencethis

actually occurs. The government has provided evidence that Gilley gathered $200,000 in

contributions,whichwereeventuallydepositedinto4PACsselectedbyRickHeartsill.Therehas

beennoshowingthatanyofthesemonieswereeverdepositedintoSmithsaccountforheruse.



9/11

ApaymentbyadonortoaPAC,thereceiptofwhichbythecandidateisspeculativecannot

be the basis for a bribe, and therefore cannot be the basis for a money laundering charge.

Without evidenceof ultimatepayment to Smith, therehas been noshowing that such a PAC

paymentwouldevenbeadisguise.Forthesereasons,Counts34-37shouldbedismissed.

Respectfullysubmitted,

Dated this the 26th

day of July, 2011.

s/ William C. White, IIWILLIAM C. WHITE, IIATTORNEY FOR

HARRI ANNE SMITHOf Counsel:Parkman, Adams & White, LLC505 20th Street NorthSuite 825Birmingham, AL 35203(205) [email protected]

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Courtand I have served a copy of same upon the following counsel of record by email on this the 26

thday of

July, 2011:

Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Ashley Nicole Penhale [email protected], [email protected]

Barak Cohen [email protected], [email protected]

Benjamin Joseph Espy [email protected], [email protected]

Brenda K Morris [email protected]

Clayton Rushing Tartt [email protected],



10/11


11/11

William N. Clark [email protected], [email protected]

s/ William C. White, IIOF COUNSEL


Documents

1543 - Smith Acquittal