Sunday, April 30, 2006 | 7:20 a.m.
Federal Judge Larry Hicks will decide this week in the G-Sting trial what instruction to give a jury that will determine the fate of ex-County Commissioners Mary Kincaid-Chauncey and Dario Herrera. Luckily, the judge shared his instructions with me first:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the key question in this trial is how you gauge whether or not the defendants deprived the public of honest services, to use the language in the law. I understand if you are confused because what you have to consider is the community standard.
"In this community, it may seem difficult to discern what that standard may be. You must put what these defendants have been accused of in the context of the larger picture. Some of you might consider much of what has gone on in local and state government as depriving the public of honest services.
"Yes, there has been a lot of servicing - and if you excuse the pun, ladies and gentlemen - I am not referring to what Mr. Galardi's employees are accused of doing with Mr. Herrera. I am talking about who is getting the benefit of the public service.
"For instance, here in Clark County, several commissioners once maneuvered to secure for their friends and political cronies airport concession contracts that could be worth six or seven figures. Some communities might consider that criminal behavior. Here in Southern Nevada, it is an ethics problem and not that large of one.
"In the city of Las Vegas, the mayor helped his son start up a business with a councilman, whom he treated as his adoptive son, by hosting an event at a national mayoral conference. That use of his position might be considered criminal in some places, but here it is considered an ethics problem. And when the mayor complained, a judge ruled that it was not even unethical.
"And, ladies and gentlemen, that same councilman set the community standard for using your office for personal benefit by soliciting a business loan and employment contracts from those who came before him. This would have involved six figures, too, and surely might have deprived the public of honest services because of the councilman's divided loyalties. But it, too, was considered a minor ethics problem.
"This is the same city where another mayor and a city manager lost their careers because they engaged in land dealings with entrenched developers who did business with the city, and where another councilman hosted a for-profit golf tournament and invited people he regulates. This would have been scandalous behavior in other places, but here there were wrist slaps, and all three are now prospering as businessmen in the valley.
"Remember, too, ladies and gentlemen, that this is a place where part-time officials are allowed to serve on the boards of companies and take money from companies they regulate, so long as they abstain on relevant items. But there is an argument to be made that this deprives the public of honest services because, even though they abstain, they are extorting these positions or they are given contracts to curry favor.
"There are questions raised, too, in this case about the difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe, so I must inform you of the community standard there, too. It is not considered a bribe when major developers and casino companies use many different corporate entities to circumvent the spirit of campaign caps to give officials hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions. These are often designed to deprive the public of honest services, but they are all given by honorable companies and honorable men.
"Major donors and lobbyists also use more subtle ways to influence elected officials. Mr. Galardi may have used oral sex and golf course trysts to seduce Mr. Herrera. But other businessmen and paid advocates have used valuable concert tickets, weekend stays at hotels or condos and other inducements.
"I have just given you an overview, ladies and gentlemen. But you can see, with this flourishing culture of corruption, to coin a phrase, the difficulty I have in telling you what criteria to use to render a verdict.
"But I have decided to give you a choice. If you believe that what these defendants have done is far less egregious than some of what I have described, you may find them not guilty. Or, even if you believe what they did fits nicely into the community standard I have outlined, you may find them guilty to send a message that this will no longer be tolerated.
"It's your choice, ladies and gentlemen."
archive
