Wednesday, May 19, 2004
The ex-congressman is incarcerated in upstate New York.
By PATRICIA MEADE
VINDICATOR CRIME REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- In a ruling today, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction and sentence of former U.S. Rep. James A. Traficant Jr.
In April 2002, a federal jury found Traficant, 63, of Poland, guilty of 10 charges including racketeering, bribery, tax evasion and obstruction of justice. U.S. District Judge Lesley Brooks Wells sentenced him to eight years in prison, which began July 30, 2002.
The former lawmaker is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Ray Brook, N.Y. His projected release is Aug. 10, 2009.
Traficant appealed his conviction and sentence. His lawyers argued that his sentencing by Judge Wells, which followed his July 24, 2002 expulsion by the U.S. House of Representatives, constituted double jeopardy. He said his punishment could have been imprisonment.
His lawyers also argued that his jury -- which had no jurors from his congressional district -- was improperly drawn and violated his constitutional rights.
A three-judge panel at the appellate court decided and filed their decision today affirming the conviction and sentence.
Double jeopardy ruling
In addressing the double jeopardy defense, the appeals court said, "Because it would thwart the constitutional separation of powers if Congress could shield its members from criminal prosecution by the executive branch, we cannot read the double jeopardy clause to include Congress' disciplining its own members."
The chronology suggests that, because Traficant's trial took place before Congress expelled him, he should have challenged the proceedings conducted by Congress, the decision reads.
Jury selection
Regarding the jury selection process, Traficant had the opportunity to challenge it in a timely fashion but did not, even though he was warned of the deadline several times, the appellate decision says. "Moreover, when Traficant decided to represent himself, the district court warned him that doing so was risky, but Traficant told the court that 'I understand the rules of criminal procedure ... [and] if I make a mistake, it's my fault.'"
All pretrial motions were to be filed by Jan. 9, 2002. He filed his objection to the jury selection process Jan. 14, 2002. Eight months separated his indictment of May 8, 2001, and the filing deadline for pretrial motions.
The appellate judges concluded: "This might very well be a different case if the district court forced Traficant to make an on-the-spot decision about whether to object to his jury composition, but given both the amount of time he had to challenge the jury and the number of times that the district court reminded him of the deadline, the denial of Traficant's tardy motion was neither unlawful nor unfair."
Representation
Oral arguments on the appeal were held Dec. 9, 2003, at the appellate court in Cincinnati. Traficant was represented by Atty. Richard M. Kerger of Toledo and Atty. Percy Squire of Columbus. The government was represented by Frank J. Marine, a federal prosecutor based in Washington, D.C., and Craig S. Morford and Matthew B. Kall, assistant U.S. attorneys based in Cleveland.
"We're very pleased with the result," Morford said today. "We're pleased to have the matter come to an end."
meade@vindy.com