Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Simon Suspects Democratic Jurors Tainted Fraud Verdict
California Journal ^ | September 13, 2002 | David Lesher

Posted on 09/13/2002 7:28:52 AM PDT by snopercod

Bill Simon, the Republican nominee for governor, spoke with CaliforniaJournal recently for a story to be published in the magazine's special election issue this October. In that story the governor and a broad arrayof other state leaders and politicians examine the current race for governorand the state of politics in California today. Here, California Journal offers a timely sample of the coverage that will appear in its October special issue.

SACRAMENTO-Bill Simon said in a recent interview with California Journal that some of the jurors who found hisfamily company guilty of fraud earlier this summer were Democrats who may have been influenced by his Republican campaign for governor.

"It could be possible," he said. "Occassionally, there are outlandish jury verdicts. Was this a politically motivated verdict?I don't know. But it is not founded on the facts."

Simon spoke with the magazine before a Los Angeles judge Thursday overturned the jury's unanimous finding that William E. Simon and Sons defrauded a former business partner, who also turned out to be a convicted drug dealer.

Campaign officials said the candidate's suspicions about the jury were based on interviews with jurors conducted by attorneys for William E. Simon and Sons after the verdict.

Attorney John Morrissey told California Journal that the jurors said their decision was not influenced by politics. Buthe also said they had seen campaign television commercials by the time the trial started in July. And he said they identified one juror who was active in Democratic politics and had strong feelings about the court case.

"In many ways, she apparently drove the conversation,"he said. "How big a part of [the verdict] it is, I don't know."

Morrissey did not reveal the identity of the juror and he said the lawyers did not interview her. But during the juryselection process, he said she described herself as a "politically active" college graduate student. He said she had experience on ballot measure campaigns and she assisted a college professor working on the recent Democratic reapportionment process.

Morrissey was not involved in the jury selection for the case and he did not know why the individual juror was not excused by attorneys for the Simon firm. He speculated that the lawyers may havereached their limit on how many prospective jurors they were allowed torule out.

Morrissey also said his notes from the jury selection process did not identify how many jurors were registered as Democratsor Republicans, which he said is a customary question during a trial likethis one.

While the jurors said their decision was not influenced by politics, Morrissey said, "for whatever reason … [jurors] saw this as big guys versus little guys-and they saw Simon and Sons as the big guy."

Last July, the jury found that William E. Simon and Sons concealed from the founder of a Southern California payphone company its plans to borrow heavily and expand the company so it could go public. The plan failed and the company was taken over by banks, costing the partner, Edward Hindelang, $23 million. The jury ordered Simon's firm to pay $78 million.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant overturned the jury verdict because he said Hindelang "defrauded" Simon's firm and other investors by not disclosing his previous drug conviction and the fact that federal authorities were attempting to recover drug money, some of which may have been used to found the phone company.

Simon's suspicions about the jury were not the only political fingers pointed at this court case, however.

Campaign aides to Governor Gray Davis reacted to the judge's decision by noting that Chalfant was appointed by former Republican Governor Pete Wilson and that he and his wife and father have been contributors to GOP campaigns, including Wilson's. Garry South, chief strategist for Davis, stopped short of saying the decision was politically motivated.

"I'll let you decide," he said.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: calgov2002; democrats; jebbushsucks; jury; simon; votemcbride
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-204 next last
To: liberallarry
See post #30. Apologies for insinuating you didnt believe what you wrote. I dont trust the LA Times fully, neither should you. The reversal was legally correct.

41 posted on 09/13/2002 8:57:20 AM PDT by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: On the Road to Serfdom
So the judge ordered Hildelang to pay Simon? I missed that part.

Yes; the judge ordered Hildelang to pay the legal fees of S&S.

42 posted on 09/13/2002 9:08:02 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Thanks, but my point still stands, the judge did not order S&S Reimbursed for their business losses due to thier "gullability". Only repayment of thier legal costs defending against the lawsuit.
43 posted on 09/13/2002 9:20:59 AM PDT by On the Road to Serfdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
The paper always gets it wrong. if you want to dig for facts, you gotta read the actual ruling

I know, I know. You're absolutely right. I was...and am...lazy. I'll get to it (I hope) and post it when I do.

By the way, your apology was greatly appreciated but not necessary. We all speak with passion (which I appreciate). I remember you from previous discussions and think highly of your point of view - which is why I didn't respond in kind. :)

44 posted on 09/13/2002 9:21:31 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
I'll get to it (I hope) and post it when I do.

If you can find the ruling, please ping me. I've spent the last two hours searching for it. Can't get into the LA Superior Court website and can't find the ruling anywhere on the web.

I'd really appreciate the ping.

45 posted on 09/13/2002 9:28:46 AM PDT by Auntie Mame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Someone is going to get canned for that, I bet.
46 posted on 09/13/2002 9:31:31 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Auntie Mame
Will do.
47 posted on 09/13/2002 9:32:02 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
I'm really surprised the Sacto. Bee (should be Bee Sacto. for B.S.!!) put the article on the front page, although, when the judgement came out against Simon they had it in BIG BOLD PRINT across the top 2 lines of the paper!
48 posted on 09/13/2002 9:51:45 AM PDT by RogerWilko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Hey, since you're so concerned about fraud in our government, how about doing a few Google searches on that one fella - what'shisname? Gray Davis!

I'll gag when I vote for Davis...but I will vote for him in preference to Simon.

On another thread someone said this is the worst choice facing American voters in modern times. Do you care to dispute that?

I would've voted for Riordan in a second if I'd been given the choice...but you probably don't like him either.

49 posted on 09/13/2002 9:51:50 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
He's just as socialistic as Davis.
50 posted on 09/13/2002 9:53:40 AM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
oops davis here!
51 posted on 09/13/2002 9:54:23 AM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
People like you amaze me! You know this loser has run the state into the ground, all he cares about is collecting political cash to stay in power, and you're gonna vote for a loser like that!? Simply incredible! No wonder this state sucks with attitudes like that!!
52 posted on 09/13/2002 9:56:55 AM PDT by RogerWilko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Do you care to dispute that?

Absolutely. I think Simon's a fine choice.

53 posted on 09/13/2002 10:00:10 AM PDT by Coop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RogerWilko
I agree with you about Davis. But I think Simon's an inept crook. Not a great choice.
54 posted on 09/13/2002 10:03:39 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
I'll gag when I vote for Davis...but I will vote for him in preference to Simon.

Instead of pulling a Lewinsky and gagging, why not vote for Camejo? He's running Green, so he's got to be close to many of your views.

Riordan? Dear God, no, I did not like him at all. His views are polar opposites of mine, and - even worse - he betrays his own party at the drop of a hat. He really should run as a Democrat - be honest about what he believes in. Yet he takes opposing views on almost all main party platforms, he funds Democrats running against his own "party" candidates, and I just think Riordan would have been a weak candidate against Davis.

55 posted on 09/13/2002 10:03:54 AM PDT by Coop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: rb22982
In your view, yes. But he's not inept and he's not corrupt. Hardly negligible differences.
56 posted on 09/13/2002 10:05:26 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Instead of pulling a Lewinsky and gagging, why not vote for Camejo?

Good idea...since I feel I'd be losing if either Davis or Simon won.

57 posted on 09/13/2002 10:07:48 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Good idea...since I feel I'd be losing if either Davis or Simon won.

While I disagree, I do respect your views. I wish more folks on all sides of the political and/or ideological aisle could present opinions and argue respectfully, as you seem to do.

58 posted on 09/13/2002 10:10:59 AM PDT by Coop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Thank you.

But this world is not of our making. We only get to live in it. :)

59 posted on 09/13/2002 10:12:54 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
If you dont consider taking money from interests and immediately supporting their view, not corrupt, I dont know what is. It's like HEY, I'm for sale.
60 posted on 09/13/2002 10:14:12 AM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-204 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson