No matter how many other ties to interstate commerce were proved during the recent trial of former state Treasurer Martha Shoffner, prosecutors didn’t prove that interstate commerce was directly affected specifically by her actions that led to the extortion charges against her, her attorney said Monday.
Defense attorney Grant Ballard made those assertions in a written reply to federal prosecutors’ response, filed Friday, to his post-trial motion to have Shoffner’s bribery and extortion charges thrown out.
U.S. District Judge Leon Holmes, who presided over the one-week trial that ended March 11, heard brief oral arguments on the matter after the government rested its case against Shoffner and before the defense began. At that time, Holmes said he would wait until after the jury’s verdict to decide whether prosecutors presented sufficient proof, required by the sections of law under which the charges were filed, to sustain any guilty verdicts.
Jurors ended up convicting Shoffner, 69, of Newport of all 14 charges she faced, and Holmes then asked attorneys to file briefs with more detailed arguments about whether prosecutors met their burden.
Ballard’s effort to win a post-trial acquittal hinges on whether the actions that prosecutors deemed illegal should have been brought under federal law, which requires that the actions affect interstate commerce.
Ballard also has questioned whether prosecutors proved that an “agreement” existed between Shoffner and bond broker Steele Stephens for him to give her cash in return for increased state business. Stephens testified that he gave Shoffner $36,000 in $6,000 increments over three years, during the same period that his business with the state increased exponentially over that of other bond brokers.
Shoffner’s attorney disputed prosecutors’ arguments that the source of the cash payments “is not material to the interstate commerce analysis.”
“Federal Courts have consistently and repeatedly taken notice of the ‘source’ of property obtained through robbery and extortion, when considering whether alleged criminal activity falls within federal jurisdiction and constitutes a violation of the Hobbs Act,” he said, referring to a federal statute enacted in1946 to pursue racketeering charges in disputes between labor and management. The law now is frequently used in public corruption cases.
To win a conviction on any extortion charge brought under the Hobbs Act, prosecutors must prove that interstate commerce was affected “by robbery or extortion,” and that an agreement existed in which money was exchanged in return for official acts, Ballard said.
Arkansas, Pages 10 on 04/08/2014