Posted on 07/21/2002 8:13:11 PM PDT by Ready2go
Traficant juror changes his mind; now convinced conviction was wrong
07/20/02
Sabrina Eaton and John Caniglia Plain Dealer Reporters
Washington
- A juror who helped convict U.S. Rep. James Traficant says his vote to find the Youngstown congressman guilty of 10 felonies in April was a mistake. He says he changed his mind after watching televised testimony before a House ethics panel this week.
"I know it's after the fact, but now I believe that there's no doubt that the government was out to get him, and if they want you, they'll find enough evidence to make you believe that the Earth is flat," said Leo Glaser of Independence, who was juror No. 8 at Traficant's nine-week trial in Cleveland.
Glaser, 54, said he was swayed by the testimony of Richard Detore, a Virginia executive accused of bribing Traficant. Detore, who faces trial in October, chose not to testify in Traficant's trial because he could have hurt his own case. But he did give his version to a House ethics panel that later recommended that Traficant be tossed from his job.
Detore told the panel he hadn't tried to bribe Traficant and that the chief prosecutor in the case against Traficant, Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Morford, urged him to fabricate a story to say he overheard Traficant seeking favors from Youngstown businessman John J. Cafaro in exchange for political influence. He said his refusal to lie about Traficant resulted in his own indictment.
Morford, who was unable to present his side of the story when Detore testified in Washington, yesterday categorically denied "any improper conduct" and said Traficant brought up the same allegations last year in legal motions that were rejected by Judge Lesley Wells. He declined to comment on Glaser's statements.
Under federal law, Glaser's change of heart won't change the verdict against Traficant. Although it's unusual for jurors to change their minds after a trial, Case Western University law professor and political scientist Jonathan Entin said Traficant probably won't succeed if he tries to use Glaser's reversal to appeal the verdict, because Detore voluntarily refused to testify in Cleveland.
Madison Republican Rep. Steve LaTourette, a member of the ethics panel that recommended Traficant's expulsion on Thursday, said that Glaser contacted his office several weeks ago to discuss the case but that ethics committee lawyers barred him from talking to the juror because of his role in deciding Traficant's fate.
LaTourette said he'll ask Speaker Dennis Hastert to bring Glaser's concerns to the attention of the House of Representatives before it decides whether to eject Traficant next week.
Another ethics committee member, Cleveland Democrat Stephanie Tubbs Jones, said she wasn't sure how Glaser's statements would affect Traficant's case.
"He's certainly not the first juror to reconsider his decision after a trial," Tubbs Jones said.
Glaser, who came to public attention when a Cleveland judge dismissed a traffic citation he was issued while trying to feed a homeless man during the 1996 holiday season, said he would have voted to acquit Traficant of all charges if Detore had testified at the bribery and racketeering trial.
"It would have given me reasonable doubt," said Glaser, a design technician at the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. who has twice run for mayor of Independence.
But other jurors said the evidence, with or without Detore's story, buried Traficant. Traficant's employees said he made them give kickbacks from their salaries and do unpaid work on his farm and boat. Local contractors said they gave Traficant bribes in exchange for assistance. Wells is scheduled to sentence Traficant on July 30.
"There was just so much evidence in the case and so many witnesses that the wealth of information against [Traficant] was overwhelming," said Jeri Zimmerman, a juror from Mentor. "I kept saying to myself, 'Please, please show me something, anything, that would make me wonder.' But [Traficant] never did. And the witnesses he called hurt him more than helped him."
Asked about Detore's testimony before the panel, Zimmerman said: "That's one person. What about the other 50 people that we saw? The government's case was overwhelming."
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
seaton@plaind.com, 216-999-4212
© 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. » Send This Page | » Print This Page MORE NEWS
I wonder who will be next. Aren't all the DC kettles the same shade of black?
I won't be holding my breath waiting for it to happen.
Well, well. Those are strong words, and the second time in a week that I have been commanded to do one or the other thing by thoughtful posters here. Being somewhat independent, I decline such suggestions. I will, however, offer a suggestion or two to you.
If you only get your information from the internet, and I know a lot of thoughtful posters do, at least avail yourself to a good search engine and look into Mr. Traficant's history. Did you know that he was a sheriff in Mahoning County, Ohio before he was elected to congress? That he was accused of taking bribes from the mob? That he was acquitted of those charges, but had to pay the IRS for the money anyway?
Granted, maybe you weren't around in the early 80s, but none of us were around during the Civil War. That does not prevent some from becoming authorities on that period.
That, alone should have qualified him as the epitome of Democrats. He just didn't have a "hit squad" like Clinton did, to cover this tracks and cause a few "Arkancides" (Vince Foster style).
And I wish great unhappiness on all government employees who requested witnesses to fabricate stories in order to indict James. I also would like to know exactly how many witnesses against James Trafficant were offered immunity and other benefits from our government in return for testifying against James Trafficant. And I would like to know exactly what the immunity protects each from.
It sounds to me like the GOVERNMENT engaged in BRIBING people to get them to trash James Trafficant.
I've followed the trial pretty closely. It obviously bothers you that he was convicted, even though the evidence was overwhelming.
You'll probably get over it.
If you only get your information from the internet...
At the same time you are refusing to back up your statements, you are assigning a position to the opposition in a debate that the opposition does not hold. Please, can we stick with the facts and provide some.
...and I know a lot of thoughtful posters do, at least avail yourself to a good search engine and look into Mr. Traficant's history. Did you know that he was a sheriff in Mahoning County, Ohio before he was elected to congress? That he was accused of taking bribes from the mob? That he was acquitted of those charges, but had to pay the IRS for the money anyway?
That is a pretty broad statement. You need to back this up. There are a lot of people that have run across the IRS and had to pay them. This hardly rises to the level of the charges you leveled against Traficant in your original post.
Granted, maybe you weren't around in the early 80s, but none of us were around during the Civil War. That does not prevent some from becoming authorities on that period.
You seem to be claiming to be an authority on the history of Traficant? So far, I have not seen anything from you that would indicate you are. Being on this earth for the last 40 to 75 years does not an expert make. When you throw out charges like you have, you need to be ready to back them up - at least in this forum.
Again, this is supposed to be a thoughtful forum. Back up your statments.
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.