CINCINNATI Traficant lawyer seeks appeal

The decision could come in 90 to 180 days.
By DAVID SKOLNICK
VINDICATOR POLITICS WRITER
An attorney representing imprisoned ex-congressman James A. Traficant Jr. argued in federal court that his client deserves a new trial.
That's because of faults with the jury selection method in Traficant's case and problems with double jeopardy, said Richard M. Kerger of Toledo, the former congressman's attorney.
Kerger and Assistant U.S. Attorney Frank J. Marine of Washington, D.C., each received about 15 minutes Tuesday to argue their side in front of a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Cincinnati. A decision is expected in 90 to 180 days, Kerger said.
Kerger argued that there was an unconstitutionally drawn jury in Traficant's case. Kerger said the process is flawed because in 90 percent of cases in the Northern District of Ohio, jurors from Mahoning, Trumbull and Columbiana counties are excluded from the jury pool.
Therefore, Traficant, who lived in Poland before going to prison, didn't get a trial in front of a jury of his peers, Kerger said.
Eight-year sentence
Traficant is serving an eight-year federal prison sentence for racketeering, bribery and tax evasion. The U.S. House expelled him July 24, 2002, concluding he violated three conduct rules based on the elements in his criminal conviction. He was sent to prison six days later.
Kerger contends that amounts to double jeopardy.
"Congress could have imposed 'any other available sanctions' as a penalty, and that could have included imprisonment," he said. "They opened the possibility of imprisonment. Isn't that exactly double jeopardy? That little argument may actually cause them a little trouble."
Marine couldn't be reached Tuesday to comment.
But in court filings submitted by federal prosecutors, they say the House never contemplated imprisonment as a sanction.
If the double jeopardy claim was true, the government contends, Congress could impair a court's punishment of a member simply by imposing discipline, as mild as a reprimand, between the time of jury conviction and sentencing.
Kerger said he was pleased by the reaction of the judges to his arguments.
"They asked a number of questions, and were concerned about all the right issues," he said.
skolnick@vindy.com