Edwards’ case should be retried, defendants argue

Melinda Deslatte

Thursday, Nov. 16, 2000 | 9:58 a.m.

BATON ROUGE, La. - Former Gov. Edwin Edwards, his son Stephen and their co-defendants said they deserve a new trial on alleged riverboat casino licensing schemes because federal prosecutors used faulty evidence to convict them.

Prosecutors acknowledged Wednesday that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling affected three mail fraud convictions in Edwards' casino racketeering trial and asked for new trials on those charges.

But defense attorneys said the Supreme Court decision nullified the theories and supporting evidence prosecutors used to prove their case.

"Because evidence was allowed into the trial as a result of these defective charges being present in the case, the spillover from that evidence affected the entire verdict, and a new trial is necessary on all counts where there was a conviction," attorneys for Edwin and Stephen Edwards said.

The Edwardses were convicted on two of the three mail fraud counts that prosecutors conceded should be retried, and co-defendant Bobby Johnson was convicted on the third. The Edwardses were convicted on three other mail fraud counts that the prosecutors said should stand.

"It would be disingenuous for us to suggest the ruling did not apply to this case," U.S. Attorney Eddie Jordan said of the Supreme Court's decision in a separate Louisiana gaming case.

The ruling said the federal mail fraud law does not apply to state licenses that have been applied for, but not granted.

Prosecutors in the Edwards case said they used an "overarching mail fraud conspiracy," which the Supreme Court decided was too broad.

Three conspiracy convictions and a racketeering conviction against Edwin and Stephen Edwards and two other defendants may also be affected by the Supreme Court ruling and should be examined "because each cross-incorporated mail fraud offenses," prosecutors said in a footnote to their motion Wednesday.

Defense attorneys said the Supreme Court decision was directly applicable to each conviction in the case.

"The taint that came from the admission of evidence that related to this legally insufficient theory permeated the trial and affected all the counts," they wrote.

"We have one belief about the impact of the case, and I'm certain it's very different from the government's belief," Edwin Edwards said in a phone interview.

Jordan said he was unsure if prosecutors would attempt to try the men again for the mail fraud charges if U.S. District Judge Frank Polozola granted their request. Jordan said he thought the request would have no effect on the men's sentencing Dec. 6.

Edwin Edwards disagreed, saying if the judge agreed to throw out those convictions, it could affect the sentencing.

Polozola filed an order Nov. 8 giving the former governor and his son a chance to reargue their mail fraud convictions.

The day before, the Supreme Court ruled in a Louisiana video poker case about the federal mail fraud law. The ruling affected part of the 1997 conviction of Carl W. Cleveland, a New Orleans attorney who was accused of disguising his interest in a Slidell video poker truck stop because of past financial problems.

Polozola gave prosecutors and defense attorneys until Wednesday to file briefs on whether the Supreme Court ruling in the Cleveland case was applicable.

A jury convicted the Edwardses in May of racketeering, extortion, fraud and conspiracy stemming from the licensing of riverboat casinos. Also convicted on a variety of charges were former Edwards aide Andrew Martin, Eunice cattleman Cecil Brown and Johnson, a Baton Rouge businessman.

The men plan to appeal their convictions.

Defense attorneys had been seeking a new trial or acquittal on more than a dozen reasons, including the legality of key wiretap evidence.

archive