Posted on 06/03/2005 10:26:05 AM PDT by My Favorite Headache
Vote fraud trial halted after puzzling testimony By Michael Shaw Of the Post-Dispatch 06/03/2005
The judge in the federal vote fraud trial of five East St. Louis Democrats sent the jury home early on Friday as lawyers puzzled over how to handle testimony from an FBI informer that was patently false.
Under cross examination, prosecution witness Dannita Youngblood repeatedly claimed that she was not interviewed by a federal prosecutor and an FBI agent a few weeks prior to trial, despite voluminous documents and reports to the contrary.
Youngblood has testified during the past two days about vote buying in East St. Louis that she claims was directed or observed by the five defendants, including the city's Democrat Party chairman Charles Powell Jr. and Youngblood's former boss at City Hall, Kelvin Ellis.
When asked several times about official reports describing her discussions with an FBI agent in preparation for trial, Youngblood denied the discussions took place, even when handed the reports and given time to read them. Advertisement
U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy cleared the courtroom of the jury and said that everybody in the courtroom knows that Youngblood's testimony "is not true." Prosecutor Mike Carr, who interviewed Youngblood himself in late May, agreed that the testimony is not correct.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
I wonder who threatened her?
According to the congress it's not a crime to lie under oath.
She'll simply get some sort of promotion.
I bet she remembers then!
I guess it all depends on the meaning of the word "is"
ping
Hillary?
So, is this good for the Democrats? Sounds like it.
Ping to the latest twist.
Why? What is she trying to accomplish? Is she expecting a big payout?
People only do this when their family has been threatened.
Me too.
Youngblood: Yes, sir. During our conference call Mr. (Kelvin) Ellis explained to Mr. (Mark) Kern how he was considered to be a racist within the city of East St. Louis and that we needed more monies. Well, he needed more monies to go ahead and try to pull these voters out and to obtain their vote. Mike Carr (Assistant U.S. Attorney): Did he explain how it is that he was going to obtain their vote to Mr. Kern? Youngblood: Yes, sir. Carr: What did he say? Youngblood: He stated that he would get the voters out to -- he will pick them up, do whatever he had to do but it would take an extra dollar amount. Carr: Did he explain what the extra dollar amount was to be used for? Youngblood: Yes, sir. Carr: What did he say? Youngblood: To get the vote out, to pay the voters to come out. Carr: Did he indicate how much money was to be paid to voters to get them to come out? Youngblood: He said he might have to start them off at $10. Carr: Did Mr. Kern indicate a willingness to do this? Pearson C. Bush (Attorney for Yvette Johnson): I'm going to object to what Mr. Kern said. Honorable G. Patrick Murphy: And your objection is? Bush: Hearsay. (excerpt not included) Carr: Under 801 (d) (2) (E), your honor, we believe there was in existence at this point a conspiracy to pay voters. He's indicated Mr. Ellis. (Jury not present) Murphy: All right. Be seated. Now the objection at this time was as to the statement of Mark Kern and depending on what purpose this statement is being offered determines whether it is admissible or not. Now I am told that it is the government's position that this evidence now comes in because there is evidence of a conspiracy. Mr. -- so that all of these statements would come in. Now that still begs the question of whether Mr. Kern's statement would come in as part of anything. Any conspiracy. I don't understand that he is alleged to be a co-conspirator or is a co-conspirator. But at any rate, Mr. Bush, what is your objection? State it plainly on the record. Bush: That it is hearsay; that it is not germane; there has not been any conspiracy established at this point so it is improper for it to come in. Carr: Your honor, Mark Kern's statement comes in for purposes of context first of all. Mr. Ellis is having a conversation with him. We think the statement would be an admission by Mr. Ellis about buying votes and for context that would come in. But we think that the very context of this discussion shows that there was a conspiracy at that point to buy votes. And he was discussing $5 and $10 a vote. Murphy: At this point in time certainly the statement of Mr. Ellis on the telephone comes in against Mr. Ellis under the federal rules. This is his own statement. But at this point in time there's been no showing whatsoever of any conspiracy. Now it may well be that as the evidence develops that there is and when we get there on motion I will admit the evidence for all purposes but at this time this just comes in for that particular dollar amount. Carr: Did he indicate who he was going to ask for that? Youngblood: Yes, sir, he did. Carr: Who is it that he said? Youngblood: Mr. Mark Kern. (Excerpt not included) Carr: I move to admit Government's Exhibit 23. Murphy: It will be admitted. (Excerpt not included) Carr: And this would have been the ballot in the 2000 general election? Youngblood: That's correct Carr: And you obtained this from the? Youngblood: Board of Elections. Carr: And then over here on the end there are -- there is some handwriting: Youngblood: Yes, sir. Carr: It looks like 264. Was this the number of ballots that were actually cast in that election? Youngblood: That's correct. In that particular precinct. (Excerpt not included) Carr: And it's -- there is some handwriting here. Is this the handwriting that you were referring to that was yours? Youngblood: That's correct. Carr: And the $5 that you've multiplied that by? Youngblood: Yes. Carr: Why did you use that figure? Youngblood: Mr. Ellis instructed me to. Carr: And what was to be done with this according to Mr. Ellis after you compiled this information? Youngblood: We were going to present the spreadsheet to Mr. Mark Kern and let him know that that was the dollar amount, the extra dollar amount, that was required for those particular precincts. SOURCE: Transcript by official court reporter Molly Clayton.
Over the course of two months last fall, East St. Louis official Kelvin Ellis met with Deputy Police Chief Rudy McIntosh repeatedly to discuss derailing a federal vote fraud investigation, never realizing the officer was wired by the FBI.
When they met in a police car on Nov. 24, a hidden camera captured the scene as McIntosh told Ellis, falsely, that a witness against him had been killed.
snip
"In the March 2004 presidential primary, there were allegations of rampant voter fraud," Goldsmith said, including misuse of absentee ballots. The allegations continued through November's election.
Including that meeting, Ellis and McIntosh met at least a dozen times, sometimes with another co- operating witness, Dannita Youngblood, a worker in Ellis' office. Authorities said Youngblood destroyed a letter threatening a Republican committeeman, at Ellis' direction.
Excerpt from vote fraud trial testimony
The following is an excerpt from testimony Wednesday in the federal vote fraud trial in East St. Louis. Dannita Youngblood, a government witness who went undercover, was on the witness stand:
Youngblood: Yes, sir. During our conference call Mr. (Kelvin) Ellis explained to Mr. (Mark) Kern how he was considered to be a racist within the city of East St. Louis and that we needed more monies. Well, he needed more monies to go ahead and try to pull these voters out and to obtain their vote.
Mike Carr (Assistant U.S. Attorney): Did he explain how it is that he was going to obtain their vote to Mr. Kern?
Youngblood: Yes, sir.
Carr: What did he say?
Youngblood: He stated that he would get the voters out to -- he will pick them up, do whatever he had to do but it would take an extra dollar amount.
Carr: Did he explain what the extra dollar amount was to be used for?
Youngblood: Yes, sir.
Carr: What did he say?
Youngblood: To get the vote out, to pay the voters to come out.
Carr: Did he indicate how much money was to be paid to voters to get them to come out?
Youngblood: He said he might have to start them off at $10.
Carr: Did Mr. Kern indicate a willingness to do this?
Pearson C. Bush (Attorney for Yvette Johnson): I'm going to object to what Mr. Kern said.
Honorable G. Patrick Murphy: And your objection is?
Bush: Hearsay.
(excerpt not included)
Carr: Under 801 (d) (2) (E), your honor, we believe there was in existence at this point a conspiracy to pay voters. He's indicated Mr. Ellis.
(Jury not present)
Murphy: All right. Be seated. Now the objection at this time was as to the statement of Mark Kern and depending on what purpose this statement is being offered determines whether it is admissible or not. Now I am told that it is the government's position that this evidence now comes in because there is evidence of a conspiracy. Mr. -- so that all of these statements would come in.
Now that still begs the question of whether Mr. Kern's statement would come in as part of anything. Any conspiracy. I don't understand that he is alleged to be a co-conspirator or is a co-conspirator. But at any rate, Mr. Bush, what is your objection? State it plainly on the record.
Bush: That it is hearsay; that it is not germane; there has not been any conspiracy established at this point so it is improper for it to come in.
Carr: Your honor, Mark Kern's statement comes in for purposes of context first of all. Mr. Ellis is having a conversation with him. We think the statement would be an admission by Mr. Ellis about buying votes and for context that would come in. But we think that the very context of this discussion shows that there was a conspiracy at that point to buy votes. And he was discussing $5 and $10 a vote.
Murphy: At this point in time certainly the statement of Mr. Ellis on the telephone comes in against Mr. Ellis under the federal rules. This is his own statement. But at this point in time there's been no showing whatsoever of any conspiracy.
Now it may well be that as the evidence develops that there is and when we get there on motion I will admit the evidence for all purposes but at this time this just comes in for that particular dollar amount.
Carr: Did he indicate who he was going to ask for that?
Youngblood: Yes, sir, he did.
Carr: Who is it that he said?
Youngblood: Mr. Mark Kern.
(Excerpt not included)
Carr: I move to admit Government's Exhibit 23.
Murphy: It will be admitted.
(Excerpt not included)
Carr: And this would have been the ballot in the 2000 general election?
Youngblood: That's correct
Carr: And you obtained this from the?
Youngblood: Board of Elections.
Carr: And then over here on the end there are -- there is some handwriting:
Youngblood: Yes, sir.
Carr: It looks like 264. Was this the number of ballots that were actually cast in that election?
Youngblood: That's correct. In that particular precinct.
(Excerpt not included)
Carr: And it's -- there is some handwriting here. Is this the handwriting that you were referring to that was yours?
Youngblood: That's correct.
Carr: And the $5 that you've multiplied that by?
Youngblood: Yes.
Carr: Why did you use that figure?
Youngblood: Mr. Ellis instructed me to.
Carr: And what was to be done with this according to Mr. Ellis after you compiled this information?
Youngblood: We were going to present the spreadsheet to Mr. Mark Kern and let him know that that was the dollar amount, the extra dollar amount, that was required for those particular precincts.
SOURCE: Transcript by official court reporter Molly Clayton.
Similar to another case I've heard of --- presented with hand-written notes clearly written by the witness --- complete, total, utter denial of having done so.
I would love to hear the follow up of this situation.
Sec Gen of the UN.
I don't believe anybody from East St. Louis could have it together enough to keep a lid on this.
All of you realize East St. Louis is in Illinois not Missouri right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.