* U.S. Judge Joe Billy McDade recently overturned former Secretary of State official Cecil Turner’s four wire fraud convictions…
Cecil Turner was convicted on four counts of wire fraud in 2006 for covering up a scheme in which three janitors were paid for hours they didn’t actually work.
Turner did not take any illegal money. He was convicted on the legal theory that he denied taxpayers the honest services they deserved.
Since then, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of “honest services'’ violations.
* Some background on the case from Turner’s 2008 appeal, which was denied back then…
Led by Dinora, the three night janitors devised a scheme to take massive amounts of unauthorized leave without being detected by their supervisors. […]
The janitors’ scheme could not have succeeded without Turner’s help. Prompted by requests from Dinora, Turner repeatedly intervened when the janitors’ immediate supervisors began to watch the three more closely.
Turner filed motions in 2010 to vacate his convictions, mainly because of the Skilling v. United States ruling.
* More explanation of Judge McDade’s recent ruling…
Under the wire fraud statute, it is illegal to use interstate wires in any scheme to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false pretenses, representations or promises. A scheme to defraud may include a scheme to deprive someone of “honest services”
In the Skilling opinion, the high court narrowed the scope of the right of “honest services” to include only cases involving bribes or kickbacks.
There was no evidence that Turner received any kickbacks or otherwise personally profited from the janitors’ scheme.
McDade said in his opinion that the court couldn’t determine whether or not the jury’s verdict on the wire fraud charges was based on a monetary scheme to defraud or the now-improper ground of honest services fraud.
* There was a monetary angle to the original case, but it was pretty darned minor and tenuous…
Federal prosecutors alleged Turner helped the janitors pocket unearned state pay in exchange for special treatment by city trash collectors in his Springfield neighborhood.
Turner received no financial kickbacks, but aided in the scheme because one of the janitors - Dana Dinora - also worked for Springfield’s public works department. He allegedly arranged quick pickups of junk ranging from water heaters to a dog house for Turner and his neighbors, Chesley said. […]
[Turner’s lawyer] told jurors special trash pickups in Turner’s neighborhood were arranged by another city employee, not Dinora, and are common for people with political connections. Turner is vice chairman of the Sangamon County Democratic Party and his wife a Sangamon County Board member.
* Interestingly enough, the appellate court had earlier used its reasoning from the Robert Sorich conviction to deny Turner’s original 2008 appeal…
The defendants in Sorich had misused their public offices for the private gain of third parties-campaign workers who were given civil-service jobs. This was sufficient, we said, because “the true purpose of the private gain requirement-and one that does not depend on who gets the spoils-is to prevent the conviction of individuals who have breached a fiduciary duty to an employer or the public, but have not done so for illegitimate gain.”… Because the defendants in Sorich had “created an illegitimate, shadow hiring scheme based on patronage and cronyism by filling out sham interview forms, falsely certifying that politics had not entered into their hiring, and covering up their malfeasance,” the “hallmarks” of an honest services fraud were present.
* Turner’s two convictions for lying to the FBI were allowed to stand by Judge McDade, however. Here’s what the appellate court wrote in 2008 about that…
On appeal, Turner contends that his statements to the FBI were not material because the FBI already knew about his involvement in the scheme and therefore could not have been misled by what he said.
We disagree.
A false statement need not actually influence the agents to whom it is made in order to satisfy the materiality requirement for this offense; it need only have the possibility of influencing a reasonable agent under normal circumstances. Turner’s statements to the FBI-denying that he provided supervisory cover for the janitors’ fraudulent scheme-satisfied this standard.
* Meanwhile, in a different part of the state, US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was in rare form yesterday…
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said he sometimes wants to smack people “upside the head” who tell him after he’s convicted someone that they knew all along the person was a crook.
“Seriously, speak up,” Fitzgerald said in a talk to the City Club of Chicago Monday.
“The one thing I find frustrating is that people view corruption as a law enforcement problem. If I had a dollar for everyone who has come up to me after we’ve convicted someone and said: ‘yes, we knew he or she was doing that all the time but we wondered when someone was going to get around to doing something about it. And I bite my lip, but I wanted to smack them upside the head.”
The person who needs to do something about corruption, he said: “was you.”
“It is my view that sometimes we say that’s the way it is in Illinois or that’s the way it is in Chicago. If you’re finding yourself saying that, what you’re really saying is: “that’s the way I will allow it to be,” Fitzgerald said.
“You either speak up and do something about it or you’re part of the problem. That’s the only way to look at it.”
Discuss.
- Ace Matson - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 10:11 am:
The US Attorney should have charged him with aiding and abetting the janitors’ crimes. DOJ used to do that in the old days, but became enamored of the “honest services” theory and overreached. The US Attorney’s offices in Illinois are very good, but they do bluff a lot pre-indictment, which most veteran defense lawyers know. They got George Ryan on many ‘aiding and abetting’ counts, where the money went directly to a third-party and never to Ryan.
- oh shut up - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 10:13 am:
What sane person would bring a concern to this U.S. attorney? If you have actual knowledge of wrongdoing, you risk spending thousands of dollars on legal bills, plus the looming possibility of being called as a witness and seeing your badly drawn face on the evening news. It makes a lot more sense to keep your head down, your lip zipped, and get the heck out of the line of fire as soon as you can. Because the most expensive thing that can happen to a person is having the U.S. attorney’s office think you know something that you don’t.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 10:20 am:
Fitz is starting to sound like he thinks he’s the Indispensable Man.
Time for him to move on. Ten years with that kind of power invested in one person in one place is unhealthy for democracy.
He picks the targets; he decides who gets a deal and who doesn’t; and he can bring all the awesome power of the federal government down on you to compel testimony.
For all the good work, there’s been abuse as well. The way he kept lining up Chris Kelly for prosecution over and over again to get him to flip on Blago was abuse. So was going after Fawell’s girlfriend. So was the “crime spree” press conference and the leaks about Blago’s behavior at the time of his arrest.
Too much power for too long. No one’s indispensable. Time to go.
- Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 10:21 am:
Great in theory, but problematic in execution.
I can suspect, believe or conclude someone is a crook, but that is a long way from having evidence that I can take to an authority for action.
Should I make that kind of accusation without sufficient basis, I would be opening up myself to litigation.
- Colossus - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 10:31 am:
I believe in Patrick Fitzgerald?
http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/harvey-dent
s-viral-marketing-campaign-spread-across-the-nation/
At least, that’s the way he makes it sound.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 10:54 am:
oh shut up’s comments are quite disturbing. People should look the other way because it could potentially cost them money? Sorry. There are more important things in life sometimes. Like making sure it’s the bad guys’ faces that are badly drawn–and thrown into the slammer.
Greed and vanity should not keep those who harm others free.
- Stones - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 10:56 am:
Suspecting that someone is doing something dishonest is one thing…proving it is another matter. I would hope most of us have a filter that prevents one running to the authorities based on innuendo and rumor.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 11:02 am:
–oh shut up’s comments are quite disturbing. People should look the other way because it could potentially cost them money? Sorry. There are more important things in life sometimes. Like making sure it’s the bad guys’ faces that are badly drawn–and thrown into the slammer.–
Easy to say. The landscape is littered with whistleblowers who got hurt for doing the right thing.
Did Edwards Hospital, whose exec blew the lid off the Levine/Rezko licensing scam, ever get their facility in Plainfield? No. If they played ball, they would have.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 11:02 am:
Anonymous, you missed the point of that comment. It’s not just money. The point was: Go to the feds and you could wind up being the one put through the wringer. It’s not unprecedented.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 11:27 am:
OK, since my last comment didn’t go through, I’ll try to state it another way.
I don’t believe I missed the point. I’m just wondering how the argument to hush up is any different from the one used to dissuade/bully, e.g., children from reporting their abusers to their parents? Seems the same, but a grown-up version.
People obviously shouldn’t go running without thinking about the rammifications they might face, but to perpetuate the idea that you’ll probably always get screwed and for little “value” in return just seems wrong.
- oh shut up - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 11:38 am:
I’m not talking about “greed”. I’m talking about getting socked with tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills because you tried to do the right thing.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 11:45 am:
Maybe you could help everyone then, oh shut up, by helping to write a “Whistleblowing for Dummies” manual. You can work on the chapter having to do with legal representation and related costs, putting together a cost/benefit analysis to help determine whether you should speak up, how to find counsel you can trust under the circumstances, and what happens when you cannot, or can no longer, afford representation.
- Jim - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 11:50 am:
Yeah, time for Fitz to move on so the pols can go back to the usual looting of the public treasury and trading public assets for private or political gain.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 11:53 am:
Yes, of course, Jim. The same guy who saw a grand conspiracy in a unanimous IL Supreme Court opinion.
- Way Way Down Here - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 12:14 pm:
===Go to the feds and you could wind up being the one put through the wringer. It’s not unprecedented.===
I’m beginning to hear about such cases with disturbing frequency. Especially when the whistleblower is in line for a serious cash reward.
- D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 12:16 pm:
Wordslinger is on point @ 10.20 as is Oh Shut Up @ 10.13. What is problematic is that this is considered to be acceptable behavior for the Feds. It started w/ the misbegotten “War on Drugs” and is now justified by the “War on Terror” and has resulted in abuse of civil liberties for everyone. No amount of the corruption by Blago or George really justified this type of abusive conduct by the Feds. One would think that Blago/George had blown up people (car accident included).
- Jim - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 1:44 pm:
Rich, why do you take such umbrage over comments that are not even related to you. And I didn’t see a conspiracy, I just saw the court unwilling to enforce the one-subject rule because it would undo the capital program. Calm down.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 1:48 pm:
Jim, it’s my blog, so I’m pretty free to do what I want. Also…
===But this law was a collaboration between Dems and GOP in the legislature. Consequently, the court’s ruling also is a political collaboration between courts’ Dems and GOP. ===
- Jim - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 2:14 pm:
No one is disputing it’s your blog. re the court, you seem to be suggesting that just as D/Rs in General Assembly collaborated on a multi-dimensional cap. bill, the D/Rs on the court decided to approve it on that basis.
But that’s an issue on which we’ll have to disagree.
My basic point was to question your overreaction to my support for Fitzgerald. Why so personal?
- Leave a Light on George - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 2:33 pm:
@ Word
=For all the good work, there’s been abuse as well. The way he kept lining up Chris Kelly for prosecution over and over again to get him to flip on Blago was abuse. So was going after Fawell’s girlfriend.=
If Blago and Kelly had learned from the lesson that Ryan and Fawell taught them Fitz would be in private practice by now.
- CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 2:43 pm:
Wow Capt Fax is engaged today
Only in America can someone who did not commit a crime be convicted of lying about not committing a crime
That little CFS ought to ‘xplain why no one runs down Dearborn Street
Speakin’ of running down Dearborn someone should have asked Fitz if the Tribbies ever came by to talk about the awful Blagoof Wrigley scheme.
Oh that’s right, the Tribbies were trying to make it happen.
- amalia - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 3:51 pm:
does the USAttny have an anonymous tip line or mail box? cause anyone who gets involved as a witness is at risk. if they cannot take information and make a case, too bad for them. who among us wants the risk? Pat, since you read the blog, make it easy for people to point you in a direction. just because we are not coming forward to your office does not mean we aren’t trying to fight things.
also,you are not the only law enforcement official who prosecutes corruption. and do us a favor and put away more gang officials so the shooting can stop.
- Jack Justice - Wednesday, Sep 14, 11 @ 12:34 am:
The Turner prosecution was one of the biggest waste of prosecutorial resources in a long time. Employees under him got paid for hours they didn’t work. Since when is this a felony, punishable by years in jail. This was an employment matter. Either Turner should have been disciplined or terminated. But convicted of a crime…give me a break. One of the reasons there’s so much crime is prosecutors waste so much going after non-criminals for political or other reasons.