Kott Trial - Assessing the Closing Arguments

What's a good way to assess the closing arguments? [I've posted my trial notes already under Prosecution Closing I, Defense Closing, and Prosecution Closing II, for a rough, running account of what they said. You can also listen to the Closing Arguments on the ADN website.] The most immediate way to assess is your reaction at the end. So I'll give an incomplete version of that here, having had 24 hours to digest things.

The government's case started by saying it was about public trust which he said was betrayed for greed. Then we went right into the charges and the evidence.

[Again, my courtroom notes are approximate]
Goeke: Mr. Marsh told you it was about public trust. People chosen to rep neighbors on legislature.
four crimes - putting interest of public aside for his own - greed
conspiracy
extortion
bribery
wire fraud

He said the official acts taken by Kott were numerous and he'd get into those. Then he listed four specific instances where Kott took something of value from Veco.

$7,993 check for flooring work
$1000 cash [payment for contribution to Murkowski]
political polls
lucrative job

Then that the evidence was unique:

hours of electronic surveillance you the members of the jury have been able to sit in a ringside seat as they committed the crimes in the indictment

Then he went through the instances where the tapes showed:

• that Kott did some official act - talking to other legislators, maneuvering to keep 20/20 in the ppt bill or if he couldn't, to kill it
• where Kott said on tape that he'd be for 30/30 if it weren't for this guy here (Allen)
  
• that Kott told Allen and Smith that he was working to get their interests met
• that showed he expected a job
• how they conspired to play with the invoices for flooring work (that was never done) to pay for Kott's son as his campaign manager
• how Kott talked to Smith about the poll Veco paid for, said they might do another
• that Allen gave Kott $1000 to cover the contribution Kott had made to the Murkowski campaign

There were lots and lots of examples. Watching these for the second, and in some cases, third or fourth time, it began to sink in how they fit into the case.

He went on to talk a little about the charges. He said about conspiracy:

Agreement is just an agreement of 2 or more to commit any one of those crimes.
Did defendant become member of conspiracy?
one of the member performed an overt act. means they did something to advance it. Floor vote, talked to a legislator many things

He talked about the other charges and a little about the jury instructions.

At the end it was pretty convincing. Despite what the defense has been saying, it's all there on tape.


Then the defense started.

I had my closing prepared, but making a detour based on what Goeke said. He talked about PK’s greed. Not a shred of evidence that says he was a greedy man. He works hard for his money, never asked anything from anyone, offered to put in Allen floors for free. This isn’t so. PK isn’t a greedy man. I’m sure you’ll find that.

You know, he's right. Kott's weakness wasn't greed. He did work hard for his money and he didn't have his hand out much. It wasn't money he needed from Allen - hell, he had $30,000 in cash in the closet - he needed approval, and I think he very much enjoyed being close to power. The prosecution did identify four clear instances where he got a financial reward, but for most of this he got an ego reward. I don't think where the law says 'something of value" it isn't referring to ego stroking. But if someone trades his official duties for power and ego stroking isn't that just as bad as doing it for cash? In any case, the defense did have a point here - it wasn't greed.

He went on to deconstruct the prosecution's argument. He was articulate, he was passionate, and he offered details. Even as he was doing it there were times when I thought he stretching things to find a favorable interpretation of the facts for his client. But it was creative.

He cleverly told the jury that all the voting evidence that he said proved that Kott wasn't Veco's water boy, was stuff the "Government didn't show you. We showed you. They didn't want you to see it." I thought that was a powerful argument, unless you looked more closely and realized that when the government went through this and other evidence raised by the defense, it seemed to show the opposite of what Wendt said it did. The government, for instance, pointed out that while there was a 'yes' vote recorded for Kott at the end of 20/20 fight which showed according to Wendt that Kott had voted against Veco, he had really voted 'no' and when his side lost anyway, after the fact he changed his vote to 'yes' so in the upcoming election he could tell his constituents he voted for the people. There were a lot of things like this.

Jan 20 conversation @ horsepower. Conversation about Chris knauss and jim clark. JC with administration. ba and rs wanted jim clark to think highly of them. Talking about how chris knaus made them look back in front of jim clark. You don’t think people talk like this all the time “who do we have?” the sierra club talks like that everyone does. Nothing criminal about it.

He took individual incidents and found a different interpretation. This would make sense if there was just one isolated incident, but the collective impact of all of them suggested to me a very different conclusion than Wendt was pushing.

W: Why did I play that? The govt says this is tying everything in. Govt. get gasline and I’m going to get barbados. They laughed. He sounds despondent. and he says, and I’m going to get my job in barbados. Then he says shit. Excuse my language. He knows he isn’t going to get anything. I’m going to get my job in barbados is equivalent to I’m gonna gt nothing.” And then they laugh.

Here Wendt takes this, as Allen or Smith told us, use of Barbados as a code for a good lobbyist job, and reinterprets the situation to be a sad one where the others were laughing at the pathetic Kott who wasn't going to get anything out of this. But, one could ask, if he never was expecting to get anything, then why would he be unhappy? If all his actions were with no expectation of anything in return, why would be upset? But Wendt really did work hard to make lemonade in the closing.

In other cases, particularly with the voting records on the ppt legislation, it seemed he was loading the jury with so much detail that they might get so confused that they would simply say, 'well, maybe he didn't support 20/20."

And he pointed out that despite what Allen and Smith said about their plea bargains, their motivation to be here was to reduce their jail time and he suggested if they do a good enough job, they won't spend a day in jail. While the tapes talk a lot more directly to the jury - and prosecution pointed out that for all but one, no one knew they were being taped - it wouldn't be fair for Kott to get a greater penalty than Allen and Smith.

He also talked about the 'plan' that is needed for conspiracy. The only plan they had was to pass the ppt and get the gasline moving. This was something Kott has wanted to do since 1992. There's nothing illegal about pushing legislation that will help all Alaskans he said.

He ended, I think, a little carried away with this project of his to make Pete Kott into a victim

He may be a drinker, he was shooting his mouth off. The govt. wants you to believe where there is smoke there is fire. They’ve only showed you the smoke. Sometimes where there is smoke, all there is is puffing. Puffing. Acting like a horse’s mouth. He’s never done ex, etc. Never did anything for ba except to work with them for what they wanted to accomplish. Pete Kott believed we aren’t going to get a pipeline unless we get a ppt. A republican gov.introduced a bill supported by a republican representative. Shooting his mouth off. Now he has pictures of himself on the internet for his grandkids to watch. He spent years in the legislature and in flooring and the Air Force. And it’s not funny, sir.

Well, as I review Wendt's closing, it seems to me the smoke and mirrors were on the side of the defense. And the juror who smiled and provoked the "And it's not funny, sir" comment from Wendt, possibly thought so too. But he raised some legitimate issues and muddied the waters enough on others that it could raise some reasonable doubts for some jurors. No, Kott probably isn't ruled by Greed. It probably won't be fair if he ends up getting a longer jail term than Allen or Smith. And when they try to figure out the plan in the conspiracy charge, will they only think of the plan to push the ppt through? That isn't like planning a bank robbery which is clearly illegal.

Nicholas Marsh did the rebuttal for the prosecution. And addressed many of the issues Wendt raised, particularly the voting on 20/20. It was calm, reasonable, and he was talking to them from more than the brain.

This is one way of assessing the closing arguments. And I'm afraid that after being in trial mostly for two weeks I had some things to catch up on today, so I didn't do it justice.

But, it seems to me, that the most appropriate assessment of the closing arguments will come from the jury. So really, the best way to evaluate the closing arguments then, is not to go through them as I just did, but to pull out the charges and see if you can pin the facts necessary to convict on those charges. That's what's been holding this post up. Trying to figure out how to combine this post and that. I give up. I'll post this as it is and then try to go through the charges in the next posts.



If you want to know more about Closing Arguments in general click here.