Jury asks about final 15 counts of Mark Ridley-Thomas' 19-count USC bribery indictment
Jury asks about final 15 counts of Mark Ridley-Thomas' 19-count USC bribery indictment
Deliberations will continue Thursday in the suspended Los Angeles city councilman's federal public corruption trial after jurors stayed an extra two hours on Wednesday.
Jury asks about final 15 counts of Mark Ridley-Thomas' 19-count USC bribery indictment
The jury in suspended Los Angeles City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas' federal corruption trial appears to be making progress.
Jurors gave the verdict watchers something to chew on right out of the gate on Wednesday: They said they wanted to stay until 4:30 p.m. That’s two hours later than they left the courthouse every day since the trial opened on March 8. (It’s an 8 a.m. start time.)
We learned this after the attorneys went into U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer’s courtroom for another question about 9:50 a.m. Jurors wanted to know, “Is taking an official action when one of the motives is to influence county business unlawful?”
It didn’t take long for the judge, prosecutors and Ridley-Thomas’ lawyers to determine an answer: “Please refer back to jury instructions previously given.”
This followed a 7:30 a.m. discussion regarding Tuesday’s end-of-the-day question, “Is violating fiduciary duty in and of itself unlawful?” I wasn’t in the courtroom, but two people who were told me the judge decided to tell the jury that they must decide if Ridley-Thomas has a fiduciary duty to Los Angeles County.
The next question indicated progress: Jurors asked about counts 6 through 20.
Those are the 15 counts of honest services wire fraud. They follow the conspiracy count (1), the bribery count (2) and the two counts of honest services mail fraud (4 and 5). (There is no count 3 on the verdict form because in the indictment, count 3 is the bribery count to which Ridley-Thomas’ alleged co-conspirator, University of Southern California School of Social Work Dean Emeritus Marilyn Flynn, pleaded guilty.)
Jurors wanted to know if, in a scheme or plan consisting of bribery, does the bribe need to satisfy all elements of a bribe as described in count 2? (the bribery count). Attorneys met with Judge Fischer about 11:10 a.m., and everyone agreed the answer is clearly no. Jurors were told no and directed to their existing instructions.
By 1:45 p.m., they were addressing another question: “Can we get a definition for honest services, please.”
A couple people in the gallery laughed when Judge Fischer read the question aloud. The jury was referred back to the instructions.
The final instructions are not publicly available, but Matt Hamilton of the Los Angeles Times obtained the court reporter’s transcript of Judge Fischer reading them aloud last week. You can read it here.
I’d predicted a long day when I arrived at the 7th floor hallway about 8:30 a.m. and a man was streaming a TV show or something like that without headphones, with the sound echoing through the hallway.
I was right.
At 4:30 p.m., everyone gathered at the courtroom doors waiting to get inside to address another note the jury sent before they left. No one had seen the jury leave and a note can of course say, “We’ve reached a verdict,” but press row quickly concluded it was another question because the attorneys were obviously discussing how to respond. You wouldn’t see that amount of paper shuffling and writing and huddled discussions if the note said the jury had reached a verdict.
The question was, “On court’s instruction 22 is the act that is agreed upon to satisfy criteria 2 the same act to be considered in 4 and 5”?
Judge Fischer and the attorneys will address it at 7:30 a.m. Thursday. Prosecutors filed their proposed answer Wednesday night.
“No. With respect to Court’s Instruction 22, the ‘official act’ in element 2 does not need to be the same act taken by the defendant that is referenced in elements 4 and 5 of the instruction. For element 2, it is not required that defendant actually perform an official act; it is enough that he agreed to do so. The jury should consider all the instructions in addition to this supplemental instruction.”
They included the instruction in the filing.
The jury is to continue deliberating at 8 a.m. I’ll be at the courthouse by 8:30 a.m. and will be posing updates on Twitter.
I may not email another article about deliberations until they conclude, but I definitely plan to email an article about the conclusion shortly after it happens, and I will regularly tweet about all the jury notes and responses as they happen. Stay tuned.
Past coverage:
Rebuttal: March 26: Jury hears prosecutor's final account of Mark Ridley-Thomas' evolving USC bribery scheme
Closing arguments: March 23: Defense says USC’s 'VIP' treatment made scholarship for Mark Ridley-Thomas' son 'business as usual'
Defense witnesses including Ann Ravel: March 22: Defense rests in suspended L.A. City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas' federal corruption trial
FBI Special Agent Brian Adkins: March 20: More from the FBI agent's testimony in L.A. City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas' criminal trial
MRT and Ralph Frammolino emails, USC whistleblower Michele Clark, USC employee Adriana Gonzalez: March 18: Prosecutors rest their public corruption case against L.A. City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas
Voir dire, evidentiary hearing: (I missed the first three trial days) March 8: primer on suspended Los Angeles City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas' bribery trial