18 Comments - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 9:25 am: “…fictitious website venues and things of that nature” Good for you Derrick. They thought so “much” of you they created stuff! “Show me the money” works for Rod Tidwell. Counting the money works for a US Attorney for convictions. - Excessively Rabid - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 9:30 am: In an era when elected officials no longer feel obliged to resign because of mere disgrace, maybe we need a statute that treats them like other employees. I propose this: if you’re indicted for a felony or serious misdemeanor (either Federal or state), you’re suspended without pay and the governor appoints an interim; if you’re convicted, you’re terminated and a special election is held to fill the vacancy (if there’s time to hold one before the general). If you’re found not guilty, only then would there be any inquiries held by other elected officials as to whether there was non-criminal misconduct. No more grandstanding pols getting in the way of the prosecution. - ChicagoR - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 9:40 am: Note to self for the future: If someone is counting out your bribery payment out loud, they are probably wearing a wire. - wordslinger - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 9:48 am: Smith had been in office exactly one year when he was arrested. That has to be some sort of land-speed record. It’s also the most interesting part of the story to me. Why were the federales on a nobody so quickly? Why did they go to that much trouble? Did they have a snitch on something else who took them upstream? Did Smith have a “For Sale” sign around his neck? Or are they after his clout? - Tired - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 9:49 am: There is a system to eradicate situations like these from happening. It is called election time. However it seems like public just doesn’t care about them anymore - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 9:51 am: Again, the feds chose not to record two key conversations: - the conversation where the bribe was offered - the conversation where the bribe was accepted. For all I can tell from the indictment, Smith is guilty of attempting to evade Illinois campaign finance laws. He owed the FBI informant $2K for all of his campaign work and they agreed to cash payments under the table so it wouldnt show up on the reports. Because the FBI didnt record key conversations, we only have the informants word for what was said. Is the informant a reliable and honest witness? We will find out at trial…but I’m guessing he or she is no Boy Scout. - Jimbo - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 9:54 am: Was he counting out thousand dollar bills? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 9:59 am: ===My take on that aspect is that Smith was “open for business”, and off the reservation so far, that the “G” was shocked to find Smith had no one to “give up” AND that “For Sale” sign was just for him. Allegedly. All Allegedly.=== I am sticking with my thoughts on what got Rep. Smith. - Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 10:12 am: Jimbo, those were stacks. - hisgirlfriday - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 10:32 am: If all Derrick Smith’s attorney has to argue here is entrapment, Derrick Smith is screwed. A successful entrapment defense needs: (1) government inducement of the crime, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY (2) the defendant’s lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Derrick Smith was already fired from a previous government job for using his position to benefit himself. Is a jury really going to buy that he was the unwary innocent here to make this entrapment defense work? - 47th Ward - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 11:22 am: Good column Rich. My main hesitation with railroading Smith is the fact that we don’t know the identity of CS-1. So far, it seems he/she is the government’s only witness. My guess is that CS-1 was cooperating with the government on matters that relate to the 27th Ward and/or another West Side legislator. Smith apparently didn’t know of the G’s interest in his little part of the world, being new to the big game. Now he knows and so does everyone else. I agree with YDD post questioning why the government failed to record two key conversations. That raises some questions. And it’s at least plausible to argue entrapment given the transcripts that were in the criminal complaint. From memory, Smith seemed to at least twice raise concerns about whether writing a letter would result in a successful grant award, pointing that he did not have direct influence on the ultimate approval of a grant. How many legislators have written letters of support to state agencies on behalf of constituents seeking state grants who were also campaign donors? If that’s illegal, then no one is safe from allegations like this. - Jimbo - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 11:54 am: I was going to say, I didn’t think they made those anymore, and if they did, it seems kind of conspicuous to be a legislator spending K-notes. - hisgirlfriday - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 12:24 pm: @47th Ward But if Smith is arguing entrapment, then the two unrecorded conversations are irrelevant. If Smith argues entrapment then he’s admitting to doing everything the government says he did. He’s just saying he shouldn’t be punished for it because the government tricked him and he was an unwary innocent, not an unwary criminal. - Learning the Ropes - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 12:33 pm: Every time I hear “entrapment” I think of “The Illustrated Guide to Criminal Law” http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-was-entrapped - Wensicia - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 12:45 pm: ==Smith was indicted on federal bribery charges directly related to his official legislative duties.== That should be enough to dismiss Smith from the House. He’s going to turn this into a circus, is this what they want going into fall elections? - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 3:42 pm: @Wensicia - I’d say that the provision in Illinois law which bars those with felony convictions from holding public office makes it clear that the intend of current law is that people not be removed solely on the basis of “indictment.” If the Legislature had intended that anyone indicted be removed from office, then the law would say that. Do we really want to hand over to 103 State’s Attorneys the presumptive power to remove state officials from office solely on the basis of an indictment? For all of the great prosecutors out there, there’s guys like Jeff Tomczak, who indicted an innocent man and suited him up for Death Row just prior to an election, allowing exonerating evidence to go unexamined for 8 months. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 3:53 pm: @Hisgirlfriday - True, as part of the entrapment defense, Smith would have to argue that he took a bribe. He IS going to have to decide whether or not to do that, or whether his intent all along was something entirely different. However, after that, the burden is on the government to demonstrate he’s predisposed. He’s written, we’re told by the media, two letters of recommendations, only one which involved alleged malfeasance. Moreover, he’s accepted and reported presumably tens of thousands of dollars in contributions, and I’m assuming everyone who made those contributions would testify there was no quid pro quo. Again, we have no transcripts or recorded evidence of Smith saying he was looking for bribes generally, the initial discussion of this alleged bribe, nor the agreement with the CI to produce a letter in exchange for a bribe. As for Smith’s history, unless he was convicted of something as a city employee, I’m not sure that’s even admissible unless he takes the stand. But I’m no expert on evidence rules. - Anonymous - Monday, Apr 30, 12 @ 4:11 pm: ==There is a system to eradicate situations like these from happening. It is called election time.== We have had state elections every two years for quite some time, but eradication of elected officials’ mischief does not seem to happen. If anything, it only allows another weed to take root. And there is no real “punishment” in not re-electing someone, unless subsequently getting appointed to an agency directorship or paid state board at a higher salary is considered punishment. Or the losing incumbent becomes a lobbyist, still at more money than a legislative salary. I suppose losing the opportunity to bloviate in the public forum may be punishment for some, but not being re-elected still has its rewards. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.