Now Federal Prosecutors want to postpone Ferriero Sentencing

by: Jason Springer

Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 11:18:35 PM EST

Yesterday we told you about a request by Joe Ferriero's attorneys to postpone his sentencing while the Supreme Court reviews the statute under which he was convicted. Today, Federal Prosecutors made the same request:

In their request, prosecutors said they agreed with Ferriero's lawyer, Joseph A. Hayden Jr., that no final decisions should be made before the Supreme Court ruling, which is expected by July. The move could delay Ferriero's Feb. 10 sentencing by up to five months.
"I think that is the fair and practical way to deal with the thorny legal issues presented," Hayden said.
In addition, the government asked Chesler to withhold ruling on motions filed by Hayden, who argued that the verdict and charges should be dismissed and said prosecutors used an "unprecedented expansion" of the honest services statute. Prosecutors also asked the judge to postpone the sentencing of Dennis J. Oury, Ferriero's one-time confidante and political ally who pleaded guilty on the eve of the trial.
"It just makes more sense to put things on hold until the law is settled," said Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Newark.

The courts ruling will determine where things go. It is interesting to see both sides agreeing on the concept of waiting for clairty from the higher court. That may be another indication of the uncertainty surrounding what the court will do.

Discuss :: (0 Comments)

[Advertisement]

Ferriero wants to delay his sentencing until the Supreme Court decides on "honest services"

by: Jason Springer

Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:42:19 PM EST

I wrote over the weekend about how the United States Supreme Court had heard two cases looking at the honest services statute and the potential implications of their decision on Joe Ferriero. Ferriero is now asking to have his sentencing delayed until the Supreme Court decides:

In a Dec. 14 letter, Ferriero's attorney told U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler that he will ask for the February sentencing to be deferred until the justices issue opinions on the "honest services" statute, a controversial anti-corruption law used to convict public officials nationwide. During arguments last week, several Supreme Court justices asked whether the law was too vague, prompting legal experts to predict they may find it unconstitutional. The court is expected to issue its ruling by July.
"So that there are no surprises, we intend to request that the court defer any final decisions on all honest services issues until we receive the opinions from the United States Supreme Court," wrote the lawyer, Joseph A. Hayden Jr.

Stay tuned to this one.

Discuss :: (1 Comments)

Could Ferriero Go Free?

by: Jason Springer

Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 11:22:05 AM EST

The US Supreme Court heard two cases last week dealing with the "honest services statute" and how they rule could have significant ramifications:

Enacted in 1988, the 28-word honest services statute has long been heralded by prosecutors as a flexible tool to charge those who abuse their positions to steer favors to friends, relatives or themselves. It essentially requires public and corporate officials to disclose conflicts of interest and act in the best interests of their constituents or employers. Prosecutors used it to convict former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and to charge the ex-governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich.
But critics argue the law is so vaguely worded that it fails to delineate between a harmless favor and a crime. As a result, they say prosecutors have the power to criminalize behavior that may not be illegal.
The Supreme Court heard two honest services cases last week. One case was brought by Black, the newspaper executive who prosecutors say conspired with other top officers at his firm, Hollinger International, to pay themselves millions in bogus management fees that should have gone to shareholders. The second case was Bruce Weyhrauch, a former Alaska state lawmaker who failed to disclose he was lobbying for a job with an oil company while pushing for legislation on its behalf. Early next year, the court will hear a third honest service case involving former Enron Chief Executive Jeffrey K. Skilling.

The court has a few options:

The court is expected to rule on the statute by July. The justices could leave the law alone, narrow it to only apply to cases involving explicit bribes or kickbacks or declare the entire law unconstitutional. Most legal experts say it is exceedingly difficult to predict how the court will rule on any issue.

Some prominent names that were prosecuted by Chris Christie in recent years would really be happy if the court declared the statute unconstitutional:

If the court strikes down the statute, it will bolster the appeals of three former New Jersey politicians: James, former state Senate president Wayne Bryant and ex-state Sen. Joseph Coniglio. But all three were also convicted of other charges, so simply overturning the honest services law won't spring them from prison.

But the real impact of a Supreme Court decision overturning the honest services clause could be Joe Ferriero:

Ferriero, on the other hand, was convicted entirely under the honest services statute and could see his whole case eviscerated if the law is struck down. The one-time North Jersey power broker is scheduled to be sentenced Feb. 10 and faces up to 20 years in prison after being convicted in October of conspiring to profit from government grants through a consulting firm he secretly controlled.

This federal case will be one to watch, because depending on the ruling, we could see a significant impact on New Jersey and the political arena.

Discuss :: (0 Comments)