Corrine Brown – Page 5 – Florida Politics

Corrine Brown’s motions will fail, says Ronnie Simmons’ lawyer

Less than a year ago, Corrine Brown and Ronnie Simmons were yoked at the hip, as Congresswoman and Chief of Staff.

Less than six months ago, both were off the federal payroll — yet yoked as co-defendants in the One Door for Education fraud case.

Much has changed since then.

Simmons struck a plea deal with the feds in February, pleading guilty on two counts, with his sentencing contingent on substantial cooperation with the feds.

As part of that cooperation, Simmons had to testify against his old boss — whose attorney, in an otherwise torpid defense, actually brought the fire in the cross-examination.

Now, as Simmons waits to find out his fate, Corrine Brown seeks to alter hers, with motions last week for a new trial and an acquittal.

The motion for a new trial was predicated on a claim that the juror who got bounced because he was compelled in decision-making by the Holy Spirit was removed erroneously. And the motion for acquittal was predicated on essentially re-litigating the trial, to again make the case that Brown was a dupe of her staffer and his girlfriend, and she was too old and enfeebled to do anything about it.

Simmons’ lawyer, Anthony Suarez, spoke with FloridaPolitics.com’s Terry Roen in Orlando Wednesday. He is skeptical of these motions.

“I’ve examined the motions and believe they’re not strong enough because they don’t cite a lot of case law,” said Suarez. “They’re not going to be successful.”

He also said he anticipated the defense attacking his client.

“I compare it to the Whac-A-Mole game,” said Suarez. “The prosecutor and Brown took turns whacking my client.”

Suarez, from the beginning of pre-trial proceedings, was frank in saying that he expected a plea deal for his client — a marked departure from Corrine Brown, who was adamant in taking the case to trial.

In the post-trial strategy discussions, there still seems to be a wide divergence between the pragmatic Suarez and Brown, whose defense seems predicated on a cult of personality that effectively expired when Brown lost her primary to Al Lawson in August 2016.

Corrine Brown motions seek new trial, acquittal after fraud conviction

Is the Holy Spirit an external force? That concept is, improbably, what the appeal for a new trial of convicted former U.S. Congresswoman Corrine Brown is predicated upon.

Meanwhile, Brown’s lawyers also filed an acquittal motion late Thursday, contending that the government did not prove its case, as some One Door money went toward charity, and there was no hard evidence that Brown conspired to defraud donors.

New trial motion: Brown was convicted of 18 fraud and tax counts in May, and her lawyer made no secret of his intent to file for a new trial.

This motion is filed on unique grounds: the jury was corrupted because a juror was removed for deeply held religious convictions, and the Holy Spirit guiding someone does not disqualify that person from jury service.

On Thursday,  Brown filed her motion – and the Holy Spirit took a prominent role in the narrative, via the dismissed juror who some say was railroaded off the trial. And others maintain was just less than stable

“During deliberations, Juror 13 said the holy spirit had told him that Ms. Brown was not guilty. The Court found that the holy spirit was an external force, and dismissed the juror. After Juror 13 was dismissed, Ms. Brown was found guilty. The Court’s finding that the holy spirit is an external force is not supported by the record. There is a substantial possibility the holy spirit was actually the juror’s own mind or spirit1 telling him that one or more witnesses had not testified truthfully. Therefore, justice requires that Ms. Brown be granted a new trial,” the motion reads.

More on the juror: “Juror 13 told the Court that his religious beliefs were not interfering with his ability to decide the case based on the Court’s instructions and the evidence. A 37. He said he had followed the evidence, and that he was going to make a decision based on “what I think and believe.”

That included such as “guidance from Heaven.”

The motion takes Judge Timothy Corrigan to task also, for saying that religious mania/revelation is “disqualifying.”

“It’s not that the person is praying for guidance so that the person can be enlightened, it’s that the higher being — or the Holy Spirit is directing or telling the person what disposition of the charges should be made,” was how Corrigan summed up the construct.

The motion seems predicated on the assumption that this is a valid revelation, as if – somehow – this is to be taken at face value and not as evidence of mania.

“A juror’s reliance on a holy spirit bespeaks devotion to duty; not external influence,” the motion continues.

Brown’s defense asserts “that the Court’s determination that the holy spirit is an external force is not a credibility determination. The Court’s determination that the holy spirit is an external force is philosophical determination.”

In a career full of remarkable chutzpah, Brown’s latest gambit — invoking divine ordinance as a retroactive defense in a fraud trial where the government laid waste to her defense strategy — may not be great legal strategy.

But it is, as ever, incredible theater.

Acquittal motion: The defense contends that Brown was not found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“The government asserted that the defendant and her coconspirators knew that at the time of the solicitations they intended to use some of the funds for their personal use and expenses. The failure to disclose this fact to the donors, according to the government’s theory, amounted to wire fraud and mail fraud,” the acquittal motion asserts.

However, scholarship funds were, the defense contends, actually derived from these events.

Regarding the fraud of which Brown was convicted, the defense contends that no evidence was provided of conspiracy to defraud between Brown and One Door CEO Carla Wiley. Meanwhile, in the case of Brown and former chief of staff Ronnie Simmons, the defense makes an interesting claim.

“Simmons testified that his theft of One Door for Education funds was often done at the direction of the defendant but he was not able to provide any corroboration for this claim. What stands out the most about Mr. Simmons’ testimony are the statements he made that eviscerated the government’s theory concerning the defendant’s guilt,” the motion reads.

Those in the courtroom may have missed that evisceration.

“Simmons provided exculpatory evidence on behalf of the defendant,” the defense said, as he contended that at least some of the funds went for charitable purposes.

Meanwhile, the government only provided “circumstantial evidence” that money collected from One Door donors made its way to Corrine Brown.

That circumstantial evidence included bank statements and video evidence of people taking money from the One Door account and cashing it out or putting it into Brown’s account.

The defense contends “the government asked the jury to speculate about the defendant’s state of mind, and to make a number of inferential leaps that were not supported by logic or the law. The government presented a purely circumstantial evidence case.”

“While the defendant did have a professional and personal relationship with Mr. Simmons, and a very limited number of interactions with Ms. Wiley, merely associating with certain people and discussing common goals and interests does not establish proof of a conspiracy,” the motion says, undercutting the existence of a conspiracy to defraud.

Wiley and Simmons, the motion reads, conspired — with Brown the unwitting, aged dupe: “a person who doesn’t know about a conspiracy but happens to act in a way that advances some purpose of one doesn’t automatically become a conspirator.”

Brown’s acquittal on certain counts of mail fraud and wire fraud, the defense says, only further undercuts the case: “At worst the defendant was extremely careless and reckless with the handling of her personal finances and her obligations to ensure that her financial disclosure forms were accurately completed.”

“In conclusion, despite the number of witnesses called, and the number of exhibits introduced, there is no doubt about the fact that there was no direct evidence of criminal intent. The government’s case failed to deliver because it did not provide sufficient the proof of criminal intent.”

Al Lawson draws on Tallahassee base for first re-election fundraiser

With Jacksonville candidates mulling a challenge to Tallahassee Democrat Rep. Al Lawson in Florida’s 5th Congressional District, Lawson begins his fundraising in earnest June 1 with a fundraiser heavy on big names in the State Capital.

Among those names: State Reps. Ramon Alexander and Lorraine Ausley; FSU basketball coach Leonard Hamilton; State Sen. Bill Montford; and Allison Tant, the most recent former head of the Florida Democratic Party.

Lawson defeated scandal-plagued Corrine Brown, a longtime Jacksonville Congresswoman who was convicted of 18 counts of fraud-related charges earlier in May, in the 2016 Democratic Primary.

The margin of victory was in single-digits, a number abetted by Brown not being able to effectively run a re-election campaign (as Brown said in federal court, everyone who would have been an asset to that effort was sidelined by the federal investigation into “One Door for Education”).

Brown, who normally would have been expected to run up the vote in Jacksonville, barely broke 60 percent of the vote in Duval County, as Lawson scored roughly 20 percent and a third candidate scooped up the remainder.

The most compelling Jacksonville candidate associated with a potential run at Lawson in the Democratic primary: former Jacksonville Mayor Alvin Brown.

Alvin Brown has talked to donors already, attempting to rebuild bridges that were broken down during his shambolic re-election campaign in 2015, and has told Democratic elected officials that he intends to launch a campaign just as soon as Corrine Brown’s court case is out of the news.

It remains to be seen how much traction Alvin Brown can get with the Jacksonville donor class.

In 2016, Susie Wiles — an iconic Jacksonville Republican who helmed President Donald Trump‘s Florida campaign down the stretch — took initiative for Lawson, introducing the candidate to Jacksonville media.

Though Jacksonville Democrats may want the seat back, Lawson as an incumbent will have every possible institutional advantage, with support from lobbies and the national party should he need it.

Carla Wiley ‘One Door’ sentencing moved to Judge Timothy Corrigan

Federal Judge Timothy Corrigan is expected to sentence Corrine Brown later this summer on 18 counts related to a fraudulent educational charity, “One Door for Education.”

Brown is not the only One Door participant that will be sentenced by Corrigan, as Carla Wiley — the CEO of the charity — will also be sentenced by Corrigan,

Wiley’s sentence is contingent on cooperation with the federal prosecutors, and she provided it in her testimony in the Corrine Brown trial.

Judge Marcia Morales Howard noted in her order that since Corrigan tried the Brown case, it “appears these cases should be in front of the same judge.”

____

Carla Wiley, the head of the One Door for Education charity, took the stand in one of the most anticipated testimonies of the trial.

Wiley had pleaded out already.

What was a mystery – how Brown’s machine took over a previously below-the-radar charity.

Part of it came down to love. Part of it came down to circumstance.

And all of it, said Wiley, amounted to fraud.

Wiley, who dated Brown’s chief-of-staff and former co-defendant, Ronnie Simmons, outlined something key to the prosecution case: a narrative that Brown had a key role in orchestrating the scheme, even though emails and surveillance video show that Simmons did most of the withdrawals from One Door and transfers to Brown’s accounts, along with cash withdrawals.

Wiley’s charity and consulting business served as a pass-through for One Door donations, which went to lavish travel for herself and Simmons.

When asked if she engaged in “fraud” for One Door, Wiley said yes – and that Brown and Simmons did also.

Brown and Simmons were the rainmakers, raising all but “two or three thousand dollars” of the $800,000 brought in, she said.

And, through all that time, she knew of one scholarship for One Door.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars came in, said Wiley, who owned up to wire fraud and profiting off of the charity.

The charity had closed its original bank account, with some thought of finding a different way of helping children, before on-again/off-again boyfriend Simmons convinced Wiley to let her non-profit host a reception for Brown in Sept. 2012.

Wiley offered the charity for that use. And she gave Simmons the debit cards and checks, trusting him to “manage it correctly.”

“I thought it would be a good way to help, get a lot of exposure,” Wiley said, with her access to her mother’s scholarship fund restricted to online only.

“As he would write checks, he would sign my name,” Wiley said regarding Simmons.

Wiley and Simmons would discuss the account balance, via email and text. Brown was out of the loop on these discussions, Wiley said.

Wiley stopped soliciting donations herself; the machine was run by Simmons within months after the arrangement was struck, even though donations would sometimes be FedEx’d to the office of Wiley’s former employer.

Money for car payments and other expenses, for Wiley and her family, coursed from the One Door account also, the witness said.

Wiley was schmoozing donors at certain events … and deciding to spend money raised: $140,000 total, she claimed on the stand. The money, extracted over three years, “came out pretty frequent,” Wiley said.

When asked about her biggest withdrawal, Wiley couldn’t recall.

Meanwhile, even with Wiley’s mother’s name on the charity and Wiley as the president, the charity was essentially Simmons’ machine to run and deploy, including sending out fundraising pitch letters to money marks, with forged signatures a specialty of his.

By May 2015, tension had become notable, with Wiley bringing up the “trouble” in an email to Simmons, noting the money came in but wasn’t going out for charitable purposes. In that email, Wiley asserted that the treasurer had expressed concerns; that was a lie, but the real story was Wiley’s own concerns about the charity having become a scam.

Details – such as the lapsed 501(3)c status of One Door – went undisclosed to Brown, Wiley said.

Meanwhile, lavish romantic trips with Simmons and Wiley, by and large, were also outside the purview of Brown – though Wiley didn’t know One Door was funding the trips, she said.

Wiley said nothing to Brown or Simmons, and didn’t know they were working the same scam.

Conflict of interest clouds renaming of Corrine Brown regional transportation center

What is to be done when a city names a facility after a convicted former member of Congress? In the case of Gainesville and the Corrine Brown Regional Transit Facility, the answer — thus far — has been to do nothing.

The Associated Press reported that the Gainesville City Commission opted to defer action last week on the move.

That deferral gives the appearance of prudence and thoughtfulness, while offering an opportunity for a closer look at how the Congresswoman built relationships in Gainesville via what could be called “transactional money.”

One Gainesville City Commissioner has asserted he has no “conflict of interest” when it comes to a vote to rename the Corrine Brown Regional Transportation Center. However, there are 2,539 reasons to think otherwise.

Specifically: $2,539 spent between 2013 and 2015 by “Friends of Corrine Brown” at a clothing store owned by the wife of Gainesville City Commissioner Harvey Budd. The money supposedly was spent on clothes for Florida Gators football games; however, a number of the purchase dates were outside of Gator football season.

Gainesville City Commissioner Budd signed a Personal Guarantee on the lease for the business. Budd is also the treasurer, director, and VP of the company that collected thousands of dollars from Brown’s political donors, via the pass-through of her campaign account.

Budd has asserted that he has no conflict of interest in a potential vote on the renaming of the regional transportation center, despite a demonstrated pattern of “campaign materials” and “gifts for supporters” being bought by Corrine Brown from Ilene’s for Fashion.

Among notable items sold at Ilene’s for Fashion: Gators’ gear made from Swarovski crystals (an interesting campaign material) and other designer items that would seem to be high-markup gear with little to do with GOTV efforts and the like.

As Brown’s trial in Jacksonville showed, the Congresswoman liked to spend money at high-end stores. Though Gainesville transactions did not factor into testimony, what was clear was that she spent money in Gator Country, just as she did everywhere else.

Despite conviction, uncertainty swirls around Corrine Brown’s fate

The trial of former U.S. Congresswoman Corrine Brown wrapped earlier this month, with Brown going down on 18 counts.

Does that mean this all is a wrap, however? No.

Much of the reporting in the last week in the Jacksonville media brought forth ephemera from the case. That ephemera, ranging from accounts from jurors to stories from a witness not called to the stand, and Brown’s own testimony, suggests the grounds for a motion for a new trial – something Brown’s attorney suggested was happening minutes after the 18 guilty verdicts.

Worth noting: Brown, at least through the appeals process, will continue to draw her Congressional Pension, as Action News Jax’s Jenna Bourne reported last week.

“Final conviction,” after appeals have been exhausted, would be the necessary prerequisite for pension forfeiture.

In other words, this is still a live case.

And making it even more live – testimony from jurors, which suggests the jury process was not on the up and up.

News4Jax has reported that two jurors were “holdouts” against convicting Brown; one of those jurors, who asserted that the “holy spirit” gave him the 411, was discharged – and the other stayed on the jury, caved in to consensus, and then had second thoughts.

“At one point, Corrine was going to walk, and at another point, she is convicted of 18 counts, and that is all because of one person’s doing,” the juror said. “No, I don’t think that’s fair.”

Brown’s lawyer wants to interview the juror before a new trial motion.

Brown, for her part, has asserted that the trial was a “witch hunt” and that she had “serious concerns” about the jury and the criminal justice system, per the Florida Times-Union.

Meanwhile, one prosecution witness who ended up not being used also expressed concerns to Florida Politics last week.

Jacksonville City Councilman Reggie Gaffney’s theory: his narrative was inconsistent with the story the federal prosecutors wanted to tell … which is something they finally realized after two meetings with Gaffney, whose “Community Rehabilitation Center” and “CRC Transportation” were discussed at length during the trial.

Gaffney said his testimony was “consistent,” suggesting “that’s why they didn’t use me.”

Gaffney, whose for-profit CRC Transportation gave Brown money, described it as a “gift” to a friend — and said it was used for charitable purposes.

“I knew she was doing the right thing with my money,” Gaffney said. “I knew she was doing the right thing for the community … some of your constituents need things. I gave money as a friend.”

Gaffney didn’t think twice about giving Brown money years ago. He saw it as a way to “help the community.”

Gaffney also contended that, contrary to the assertions of those from other Jacksonville non-profits, Brown actually gave to his non-profit CRC during the period being investigated.

“Staff saw her bring stuff,” Gaffney said, and sometimes Brown would call CRC for a pick-up.

Was Gaffney scratched from the prosecution witness list because his narrative was inconsistent with the prosecution argument? Because his story would have added a wrinkle of nuance to a prosecution narrative that, by and large, went substantively unchallenged in cross-examination?

While we aren’t privy to motions to come this week or next, expect that perceived irregularities from May’s trial will drive the Corrine Brown narrative as the summer heats up.

And after Corrine Brown? The race to become the next Corrine Brown.

Word in the halls is that former Jacksonville Mayor Alvin Brown is waiting until Queen Corrine is out of the headlines before launching his Congressional bid.

Other Jacksonville Democrats — the kind who see Mayor Next Level as a 1000-watt smile and not much else — also mull their options.

The longer this goes, the more their window closes.

Gainesville considers renaming Corrine Brown transit center

Gainesville city leaders are considering removing the name of former U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown from a transit facility in the town following her conviction on federal fraud charges.

The Gainesville Sun reports that the Gainesville City Commission on Thursday considered whether to remove Brown’s name from a Regional Transit System facility, but decided to consider the move at a later meeting.

Brown, 70, was convicted by a federal jury of fraud and other charges for taking money from a purported charity for poor children called One Door for Education Foundation and using the money for parties and other personal expenses. She has not yet been sentenced.

Brown helped secure federal funding for Regional Transit Center in Gainesville, and the facility was named in her honor.

Republished with permission of The Associated Press.

Reggie Gaffney tells why he didn’t testify in the Corrine Brown trial

Jacksonville City Councilman Reggie Gaffney was an eagerly-awaited prosecution witness in the trial of Corrine Brown.

Despite being on the witness list, Gaffney — a longtime friend and confidant of Brown — was not called to testify in the trial.

And FloridaPolitics.com has Gaffney’s exclusive take on why that is.

Gaffney’s theory: his narrative was inconsistent with the story the federal prosecutors wanted to tell … which is something they finally realized after two meetings with Gaffney, whose “Community Rehabilitation Center” and “CRC Transportation” were discussed at length during the trial.

Gaffney said his testimony was “consistent,” suggesting “that’s why they didn’t use me.”

Gaffney, whose CRC Transportation gave Brown money, described it as a “gift” to a friend — and said it was used for charitable purposes.

“I knew she was doing the right thing with my money,” Gaffney said. “I knew she was doing the right thing for the community … some of your constituents need things.”

“I gave money as a friend,” Gaffney said.

Gaffney, who said that Brown and “everybody called [him] with needs” ranging from bills to kids’ clothes, didn’t think twice about giving Brown money years ago.

He saw it as a way to “help the community.”

Gaffney also contended that, contrary to the assertions of those from other Jacksonville non-profits, Brown actually gave to his non-profit CRC during the period being investigated.

“Staff saw her bring stuff,” Gaffney said, and sometimes Brown would call CRC for a pick-up.

Was Gaffney scratched from the prosecution witness list because his narrative was inconsistent with the prosecution argument?

If so, expect that Gaffney’s testimony — along with that of jurors who claim the trial was rigged — will fuel the fire of those who claim that the trial was rigged against Corrine Brown.

How religious mania changed the Corrine Brown jury

Speculation about what a discharged juror (“Juror 13”) said last week in a closed-court session in the trial of Corrine Brown can now end, as a transcript of the session was released Monday afternoon. [Transcript of Juror 13]

Juror 8, the juror who complained about the comments — relating that the discharged juror spoke of “higher beings” saying that Brown was guilty — kicked off proceedings in closed court by registering concerns.

The discharged juror had made such comments on the first day of deliberations and did not reiterate such comments, according to Juror 8.

However, “Some of the jurors are concerned that that’s affecting his — his decision,” Juror 8 said.

Federal prosecutor A. Tysen Duva was unmollified: “A higher being told me that Corrine Brown was not guilty on all charges and that he trusted the Holy Ghost. That does not resonate whatsoever with the court’s instructions to apply the law to the facts and make a decision,” he said regarding the juror’s mental state and ability to discern guilt from innocence in an evidentiary framework.

The discharged juror, for his part, didn’t reassure the feds.

“I told them that in all of this, in listening to all the information, taking it all down, I listen for the truth, and I know the truth when the truth is spoken. So I expressed that to them, and how I came to that conclusion …. I told — I told them that — that I prayed about this, I have looked at the information, and that I received information as to what I was told to do in relation to what I heard here today — or this past two weeks.”

The juror’s tipster? “My Father in Heaven.”

“My religious beliefs are going by the testimonies of people given here, which I believe that’s what we’re supposed to do, and then render a decision on those testimonies, and the evidence presented in the room,” the juror said.

Brown’s attorney attempted to defend this position: “I think the juror has simply said the Holy Spirit told him something. I think based upon what he said — however, he did say that he considered and has looked at the evidence that was presented, and did respond to the court’s questions concerning, first, his ability to follow the instructions given by Judge [James R.] Klindt during jury selection, whether or not there was any moral or religious belief that would prevent him from serving as a juror.”

Juror drama swirls in aftermath of Corrine Brown verdict

Could juror drama and input retroactively affect the verdict of the Corrine Brown trial after all? Could it play into a motion for a new trial?

With drama swirling relative to certain jurors, there is reason to wonder, with Brown’s lawyer voicing oral motions to interview jurors.

While the oral motions were denied, written motions were invited by Judge Timothy Corrigan.

____

There are three corporations that control television news in Jacksonville: First Coast News, Cox Media Group, and Graham Media.

They compete for viewership — and compete to be “first” among stories, including how outlets decided to skirt the order and break prohibitions on broadcasting from the courtroom. However, Monday saw these rivals present a united front regarding a matter from the trial of Corrine Brown, which wrapped last week.

Multiple Jacksonville TV stations filed motions over the weekend to unlock a controversial transcript of a bounced juror in the Corrine Brown trial, and to permit contact with discharged jurors – both conditions prohibited by Judge Corrigan.

In this case, the matter of the discharged juror is salient to what happened afterwards.

To recap: a juror expressed concerns about a certain juror discussing what was called “higher beings” in concordance with Corrine Brown, and after a closed emergency hearing Wednesday morning, the juror talking about the spiritual realm was removed.

A day later, Brown was found guilty of 18 of 22 counts, once an alternate replaced the spiked juror.

This sudden evolution in jury mood raised questions, and Judge Timothy Corrigan mulled them Monday, via motions from all three outlets that covered the same ground.

The motions note a lack of “compelling” reason to keep the transcript sealed, especially given that the trial is now concluded, and given that counsel has no objection to the transcript being open.

Corrigan noted, to the delight of media, that the transcript from the discharged juror will be open – leading to a media feeding frenzy once the hearing ends.

“It’s well-established that the media has interest in these matters,” Corrigan said, allowing the television media and the Florida Times-Union to move forward with its reportage.

The court, Corrigan added, lacks a “legal basis” to prohibit press contact with jurors, barring specific claims of harassment.

Less certain: Corrigan’s dispensation on releasing the jurors’ names.

An attorney for one of the media corporations contended that issues, such as jurors being threatened because of their verdict, don’t exist in this case; Corrigan contended that media seems to know who the jurors are.

As well, Corrigan noted that practice is to redact names and identifying information, potentially exposing jurors to scrutiny.

The motion, Corrigan said, will be taken under advisement.

“I’ll follow the law,” Corrigan said, regarding releasing them and the timeframe in which such release is made.

___

Meanwhile, a “compelling” reason to open the transcript – and to open up further inquiry into the jury – was offered by Brown’s attorney, James Smith, who suggested that the issues with the jury may come into play in his expected motion for a new trial.

Smith got an email from one of the jurors saying that the juror had “something that might help your appeal” on Saturday evening.

Smith brought it to the attention of the court, he said, as “this particular juror” was “crying” after a recess, which he and Corrine Brown noted.

“The juror reached out with some information,” Smith said, and he would like to talk to the juror and find out what was going on.

Prosecutor A. Tysen Duva said that at this point, the court should do nothing, given court rules barring testifying about jury deliberations afterwards, and given that this retroactive testimony could be “extraneous, prejudicial information” and likely would be inadmissible after the fact – an attempt to undermine an unpopular verdict.

“If we ever get to that point where the court permits such an interview,” Duva said, it would happen in open court.

“At this point, we don’t know what motivated the juror to reach out to Mr. Smith,” the prosecutor added.

Smith wanted to interview the juror nonetheless, as the juror reached out “after the events of previous jurors took place.”

Smith’s theory: the internal juror dynamics could be the issue … as could be “outside interference.”

“At least at a minimum, I should be able to have an interview,” Smith said.

Corrigan noted such exceptions are “rare,” with “well-stated grounds.”

“I am disinclined at the moment to think those legal grounds are present,” Corrigan said, inviting a written motion (“a more detailed brief with case law”) from Smith that could make the argument more salient.

Smith also pressed to allow Corrine Brown to talk to the media, which led Corrigan to note that any restrictions no longer exist.

“There is no legal restriction on you talking to the media,” Corrigan said to the former Congresswoman.

____

Beyond these issues, even more juror drama exists in this case.

FCN ran a leaked letter asserting that Brown’s attorney, James Smith, disputed the “higher beings” phrasing ascribed to the discharged juror, asserting rather that the juror claimed that “God” asserted Brown’s innocence to him, and that assertion was not contradicted by the evidence.

“Despite what you may have heard in the news reports he did not make any references to ‘higher beings,’” Smith wrote.

“He said that prior to the trial God had told him that the Congresswoman was not guilty and that after listening to the evidence and hearing closing arguments he still believed that she was not guilty,” Smith added.

“Despite the fact that there was no evidence that the juror was interfering with deliberations and stated that he was ultimately basing his vote on the evidence and the instructions, the judge decided to kick him off,” Smith was quoted as saying by FCN.

As Smith prepares a motion for a new trial, it will be interesting to see how all this juror drama plays in. He told us that this issue, and the court’s handling of it, merit closer investigation.

Drama is still swirling, in fact, regarding the discharged juror: a claim “on the news” that the discharged juror didn’t vote guilty “because the Holy Spirit told [him] so.”

This claim was made via text to a court officer, Judge Corrigan said.

Smith noted that the drama could speak to other issues, “providing the basis for some other post-trial motions I could file,” especially in light of “ambiguity” and the potential of outside influences.

If the original claim of the discharged juror’s religious mania is “not true,” Smith said, that raises other questions.

Corrigan countered that the dismissed juror admitted to making the statements that proved to change the entire narrative of the trial itself.

“The basis of the court’s decision to dismiss the juror ultimately is what the juror told me,” Corrigan added.

Corrigan, referring to the transcript, noted the juror’s alleged position that a “higher being” said that Brown was innocent on all charges.

“No, I said the Holy Spirit told me that,” the juror said, according to the transcript. “I mentioned that in the very beginning when we were on the first charge.”

Corrigan advised a written motion to firm up Smith’s argument to guide his decision.

“My decision now is to not do anything about this juror communication,” Corrigan said.

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons