Edwards wants new trial based on Polozola’s recusal

Guy Coates

Tuesday, July 18, 2000 | 11:01 a.m.

BATON ROUGE, La. - Former Gov. Edwin Edwards and others convicted in the federal corruption case involving riverboat gambling now say they should get a new trial based on Judge Frank Polozola's decision to remove himself from still another trial involving Edwards.

Polozola presided over a trial earlier this year in which Edwards, his son Stephen and three other men were convicted of trying to rig the state's riverboat casino licensing process.

Edwards, Insurance Commissioner Jim Brown and two others face trial in September on federal charges that they worked out a sweetheart deal for a failed insurance company.

Polozola recently removed himself from presiding at the insurance trial, saying that the length and complexity of the gambling trial kept him from realizing potential conflicts in the insurance case.

The potential conflicts, he said, could come from his professional connections with three men who might be witnesses: U.S. Attorney L. J. Hymel, former assistant U.S. attorney Ed Gonzales and former state judge Foxy Sanders.

Polozola said their testimony could bring his impartiality into question.

Edwards and the others convicted in the gambling trial filed a motion Monday saying they should get a new trial because the government interjected the insurance case during the gambling issue.

If Polozola is worried about a possible conflict in the insurance trial, what about a conflict in the one already handled? the motion asked.

The motion's arguments included:

In asking that the jurors names be kept secret, the government mentioned the insurance case, raising the issue of alleged witness tampering of Gonzales, who had been a special master in the failed insurance company matter. The issue was the basis for having an anonymous jury that could not be tampered with.

The defense challenged the credibility of Gonzales, objecting to an anonymous jury.

"At the time, the court made no reference to the problem it would have being impartial in assessing the credibility of Ed Gonzales," said the motion. The gambling trial was tainted simply by the possibility or perception that the court could not be impartial.

Polozola said he would rule on the motion after giving the government time to respond.