Showing posts with label Michael Morton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Morton. Show all posts

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Mike Maggio pleads guilty to federal bribery charge

Mike Maggio pleads guilty to federal bribery charge

Posted By and on Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 1:34 PM

click to enlargeFALL FROM GRACE: Mike Maggio pleads guilty to federal bribery charges.
  • FALL FROM GRACE: Mike Maggio pleads guilty to federal bribery charges.
Former Circuit Judge Mike Maggio of Conway pleaded guilty to federal bribery charges on Friday in U.S. District Court. The offense carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

It was a negotiated plea. It means he'll cooperate with the government, which was silent in its news release about plans for any future indictments. His cooperation could reduce his potential sentence to the range of three years, though the federal judge will ultimately make the call. A felony conviction will cost Maggio his law license.


Maggio had already been reprimanded by the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission, which barred him from ever serving as a judge again. And he was the target of a civil suit over the same matter that led to today's plea on federal criminal charges; Max laid out the details succinctly in November:

Thomas Buchanan, a Little Rock attorney, has sued former Circuit Judge Mike Maggio of Conway, nursing home owner Michael Morton of Fort Smith and former Republican Sen. Gilbert Baker of Conway, a middleman on political contributions from Morton to Maggio and other judicial and legislative candidates.

The suit was filed on behalf of the family and representatives of Martha Bull, who died in the Greenbrier Care Center owned by Morton after the staff failed to act on a doctor's order that she needed hospitalization. Buchanan won a unanimous $5.2 million jury verdict for the family in Maggio's court. Maggio later decided the verdict "shocked the conscience" and reduced it to $1 million. This occurred about the time Morton was contributing money to political action committees set up by a Little Rock lawyer with Baker's guidance. The PACs contributed money to Maggio's campaign for state Court of Appeals. Blue Hog Report's later disclosure of the suspicious timing of contributions, along with Maggio's injudicious comments on an LSU fan website, forced his resignation from office and, ultimately, his permanent removal from the bench by the Arkansas Supreme Court.

In a newspaper interview with Debra Hale-Shelton of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Morton has said he knew the multiple PAC donations he made were headed to Maggio. But he has disavowed any quid pro quo. Morton also contributed $100,000 to the University of Central Arkansas, where Gilbert Baker then worked as an assistant to President Tom Courtway. That money has been refunded.

click to enlargeMICHAEL MORTON: His nursing home benefitted from Maggio ruling.
  • MICHAEL MORTON: His nursing home benefitted from Maggio ruling.
The court documents filed Friday reference two other parties, "Individual A" and "Individual B." The documents say Maggio, "did knowingly and corruptly solicit and demand for his own benefit and the benefit of others, and accept and agree to accept, a thing of value from Individual A — that is, campaign contributions — provided through an intermediary, that is, Individual B..."

Individual A seems to be Morton, a stockholder in many nursing homes; Individual B is likely Baker,  a lobbyist and campaign fund-raiser as described in the information.

We'll update this post soon with more details. In the meantime, here's Maggio's plea:

mm_plea.pdf

And here's information from the U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case:

mm_docs.pdf
click to enlargeGILBERT BAKER: Campaign finance bundler helped raise money for judges.
  • GILBERT BAKER: Campaign finance bundler helped raise money for judges.
Here's the key narrative from the U.S. attorney:

… Individual B and others asked MAGGIO to consider running as a candidate for the Arkansas Court of Appeals. In or about May 2013, MAGGIO and Individual B met with others to discuss MAGGIO’s campaign for the Court of Appeals. During the meeting, MAGGIO was told that he would need to raise more than $100,000 to run a successful campaign. Individual B told MAGGIO that MAGGIO would be responsible for smaller donations from friends and family, totaling approximately $25,000 to $50,000, and Individual B would be responsible for covering the difference by raising funds from industry types” including, among other entities, nursing homes. On or about May 16, 2013, at approximately 10:33 a.m., Individual B sent MAGGIO a text message stating, “I have a LR lunch today with the nursing home folks. The topic will be judicial races. You are at the top of the list.” [Emphasis added.]

[Michael Morton ultimately contributed tens of thousands of dollars to multiple judicial candidates, heavily concentrated in Baker's home of Faulkner County. He provided major financing to, among others, Rhonda Wood of Conway, elected to a seat on the Arkansas Supreme Court.]

On or about June 27, 2013, MAGGIO formally announced his candidacy for the Arkansas Court of Appeals for the nonpartisan general election to be held on May 20, 2014. On or about June 29, 2013, at approximately 8:15 a.m., Individual B sent MAGGIO a text message stating in part, “Well your first 50k is on the way.” MAGGIO understood that this $50,000 included financial support from Individual A.

Between on or about June 29, 2013 and or about July 8, 2013, Individual B communicated to MAGGIO, stating in essence, “Win, lose, or draw, you have Individual A’s support,” referring to MAGGIOs decision on the motion for new trial or remittitur. MAGGIO understood that the purpose of this message was not to reassure MAGGIO that he had Individual A’s support regardless of any decision on the remittitur, but rather Individual B was reminding MAGGIO to make a favorable ruling to Individual A and Company A because of Individual A’s financial support of MAGGIOs campaign. At another time, Individual B reminded MAGGIO that he would receive campaign financial support if he made the tough calls” while on the bench.

MAGGIO understood that Individual B was advising MAGGIO that, in exchange for MAGGIO’s ruling in favor of Individual A and Company A, Individual A would provide campaign donations to MAGGIO.

On or about July 8, 2013, during the early afternoon, MAGGIO held a hearing on Company A’s pending post-verdict motions, including the motion for remittitur. On or about July 10, 2013, MAGGIO signed an order denying Company A’s motion for a new trial, but granting Company A’s motion for remittitur. MAGGIO reduced the judgment against Company A from $5.2 million to $1 million.

We are seeking comments from Baker and Morton and their representatives. The development is explosive. Baker bundled money for many candidates, including in Stacy Hurst's race for state representative. She got early money from Morton-financed PAC and refunded it when the scandal broke, but then Morton came in with $8,000 late dollars for her losing campaign in the last 10 days of the race. Morton gave large sums to Rhonda Wood, Robin Wynne and Karen Baker, all now sitting on the Supreme Court; to Maggio for the Court of Appeals; and to at least three candidates for circuit judge in Faulkner County.

The corrosiveness of special interest spending in judicial races has never been more apparent than in Maggio's appearance today in federal court.

Here's the U.S. attorney release on the case, with a good narrative of events.
The first story about Maggio's verdict reduction appeared on the Arkansas Blog July 11.  Blue Hog Report set fire to the Maggio story with reports about his web commentary and, more importantly, the convergence of legal events with curious campaign finance activity.  The Democrat-Gazette has reported extensively on Maggio's case and Morton's effort to influence political races with cash, always, he has said, in the interest of quality candidates, not in return for favors.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Mike Maggio cuts deal on judicial ethics probe; will never be judge again

Mike Maggio cuts deal on judicial ethics probe; will never be judge again

Posted By on Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:10 PM

click to enlargeMIKE MAGGIO: Judging days over.
  • MIKE MAGGIO: Judging days over.
Circuit Judge Mike Maggio of Conway, who continues to draw more than $140,371 a year pay while not hearing any cases since the beginning of an ethics probe, has agreed to a settlement of his case before the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission.

In it, he admits violations of ethics rules and agrees never to seek office again as judge. He  will be able to be paid for the rest of this year, which means he can continue to accrue retirement benefits. But he'll be suspended from acting as judge. He's done as a judge.

Each additional year of service qualifies a judge for pay equal to 3.2 percent of the salary of the office at retirement. Maggio, 53, took office as circuit judge in 2001, appointed to a vacancy by Gov. Mike Huckabee. He was elected twice. A judge must be 65 to take retirement benefits unless 20 years have been served.

Here's the lengthy findings of violations and agreed punishment.
Multiple complaints were merged to produce some core findings of violations, all related to his prolfic postings as "geauxjudge" on an LSU fan website, tigerdroppings:

* He breached confidentiality in the case of an adopting mother, actress Charlize Theron, by revealing she'd adopted a child in Faulkner County.

* He had misused social media to the detriment of the judiciary by comments easily traced to a sitting judge. Ironically, some included pronouncements on poor judicial behavior by others. Some of his comments were posted while he sat on the bench hearing cases.

* He tried to clean up the record — thus removing evidence — after the news broke.

* He made improper comments as a sitting judge. The volume of comments suggested more than a problem of taste and decorum, the report said. "It adds up to demonstrate someone who is unfit for the bench." The record included sex jokes about bipolar women; blow jobs as wedding gifts; incest references; referring to teenagers' sex with teachers as trophy hunting, and remarks about how women make divorce decisions on emotion rather than common sense. He made jokes about the names of black people and derogatory remarks about gay people and Mexicans. Pages 3-6 of the report are a mind-numbing illustration of Maggio's lack of fitness to serve.

You'll find on a subsequent blog post Maggio's letter on the case in which he said the words didn't represent him and that he was sure those who'd been in his court believed he'd treated with "fairly and with respect." Those who filed the complaints were just a few of many who didn't feel that way.

The findings include the conclusion without any action of the complaint that Maggio's ruling in a nursing home damage case may have been influenced by political campaign contributions from the nursing home owner. The finding said that complaint would have taken much more investigation. Also dropped were some specific complaints about Maggio's comments on an Internet website.

In the document prepared by David Sachar, director of the Judicial Commission, Maggio agreed his violations justified removal from office effective Dec. 31.  In the meanwhile, he agreed suspension with pay is appropriate. He agreed the ruling means he can never be judge again.

The finding notes that, had Maggio chosen to contest the charges, he could have extended the proceeding beyond his term of office this year. The findings — approved by an 8-0 Commission vote — will be submitted to the Supreme Court.

Judicial Discipline explained that among mitigating circumstances was  Maggio's admission of wrongdoing, which saved "time, expense and further embarrassment" to the judiciary.
click to enlargeUNFIT: Maggio's improper comments as "geauxjudge" on LSU website included remarks on how he viewed cases in his court.
  • UNFIT: Maggio's improper comments as "geauxjudge" on LSU website included remarks on how he viewed cases in his court.

The Arkansas Supreme Court reassigned Maggio's caseload in March after a flurry of unflattering reporting.

Maggio was unopposed as a candidate for a Court of Appeals seat when the trouble started. First came news  dug up by Matt Campbell of Blue Hog Report that Maggio was a commenter on an LSU fan website, Tiger Droppings. His prolific comments targeted women, gays, minorities, welfare recipients and others. He also revealed the confidential adoption proceeding in Faulkner County of Charlize Theron.

Blue Hog kept digging into specifics of a subject reported here — Maggio's rich support in the nursing home industry including by an owner favored by Maggio in a case in his court. Blue Hog found the creation of a number of PACs, almost solely funded by nursing home operator Michael Morton, that had also dropped big money into Maggio's campaign. The PAC money dropped while Maggio was considering a reduction in a $5.2 million unanimous jury vericit against a Greenbrier nursing home owned by Morton. Maggio ultimately said the verdict shocked his conscience and reduced it to $1 million.

Maggio has since been fined for some minor excess campaign contributions by the state Ethics Commission, but the judicial ethics investigation on other points, now concluded, continued after that ruling. So does a federal investigation of the campaign contributions. He and Morton have insisted there was no quid pro quo in the contributions to Maggio, all arranged by former Sen. Gilbert Baker, a political money bagman in a number of judicial and other races for Republican and pro-tort reform candidates. Maggio was forced to drop out of the Court of Appeals race. A candidate, Bart Virden, emerged shortly before filing deadline, with news bubbling of Maggio troubles.

Maggio had a checkered record before this year's race began.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

For the First Time Ever, a Prosecutor Will Go to Jail for Wrongfully Convicting an Innocent Man

For the First Time Ever, a Prosecutor Will Go to Jail for Wrongfully Convicting an Innocent Man
Posted: 11/08/2013 4:12 pm




Today in Texas, former prosecutor and judge Ken Anderson pled guilty to intentionally failing to disclose evidence in a case that sent an innocent man, Michael Morton, to prison for the murder of his wife. When trying the case as a prosecutor, Anderson possessed evidence that may have cleared Morton, including statements from the crime's only eyewitness that Morton wasn't the culprit. Anderson sat on this evidence, and then watched Morton get convicted. While Morton remained in prison for the next 25 years, Anderson's career flourished, and he eventually became a judge.
In today's deal, Anderson pled to criminal contempt, and will have to give up his law license, perform 500 hours of community service, and spend 10 days in jail. Anderson had already resigned in September from his position on the Texas bench.
What makes today's plea newsworthy is not that Anderson engaged in misconduct that sent an innocent man to prison. Indeed, while most prosecutors and police officers are ethical and take their constitutional obligations seriously, government misconduct--including disclosure breaches known as Brady violations--occurs so frequently that it has become one of the chief causes of wrongful conviction.
What's newsworthy and novel about today's plea is that a prosecutor was actually punished in a meaningful way for his transgressions.
I give speeches about the Innocence Movement, and tell stories from real cases, all around the world. No matter where I am, when I finish speaking the first question usually is, "What happened to the police/prosecutors who did this to the poor guy?" The answer is almost always, "Nothing," or worse, "The police officer was promoted and now is the chief of his department." The adage that the powerful go unpunished is no truer or more visible than with police officers and prosecutors in America--even when they send innocent people to prison from their misconduct.
My client Roger Dean Gillispie of Dayton, Ohio, for example, spent 20 years in prison as a result of police misconduct. In 2007, we presented overwhelming evidence that the police officers, like Anderson in the Morton case, failed to turn over evidence to the defense before trial that would have cleared Gillispie. We also supplied the court with evidence that the police officer in charge had harassed and intimidated witnesses helpful to the defense, and had manipulated the evidence. Before going to court to clear Gillispie, we met with the local prosecutors, hopeful that they wouldn't tolerate such misconduct and would do a thorough (and neutral) investigation to get to the truth. Instead, they simply denied everything in knee-jerk fashion, and fought to keep Gillispie in prison until a federal court finally found government misconduct and threw out his charges in December 2011. To this day, the police officer in the case has not been investigated by a neutral, independent body. The only thing he has received is promotions.
Rogue cops and prosecutors going unpunished is the rule rather than the exception. In Illinois, two police officers whose improperly grueling interrogation techniques led to the wrongful conviction of Juan Rivera and others were not penalized when their 3rd degree tactics came to light. Rather, they were recently hired at taxpayer expense to teach interrogation courses to other police officers around the state.
A recent study found prosecutorial misconduct in nearly one-quarter of all capital cases in Arizona. Only two of those prosecutors have been reprimanded or punished. This led the Arizona Republic to conclude:
There seldom are consequences for prosecutors, regardless of whether the miscarriage of justice occurred because of ineptness or misconduct. In fact, they are often congratulated.
Other studies/articles with similar troubling results can be found here, here, here, and here.
Fortunately, there is something very simple that judges across the country can do to eradicate this problem. All judges, state and federal, should issue the standing "ethical rule order" proposed by the Hon. Nancy Gertner and Innocence Project Co-Founder Barry Scheck. The proposed order requires prosecutors to disclose, pre-trial, all evidence that "tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense." Details regarding the proposed ethical rule order, including all the justifications supporting it, can be found in this article by Barry Scheck.
The reason such standing ethical rule orders are important is that they allow prosecutors, like Ken Anderson, to be held in criminal contempt if they are later found to have engaged in misconduct. Anderson could be punished today only because such an order had been issued in the Morton case.
Today's conviction of Ken Anderson stands out as an extreme aberration in a society where police and prosecutorial misconduct goes largely unpunished. But it is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, today's result will deter rogue cops and prosecutors in the future from engaging in similar misconduct. But this will happen only if judges across the country do what the judge did more than 25 years ago in the Morton case: issue an order requiring that proper disclosure to the defense, or risk criminal contempt proceedings.