U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Tuesday, September 18, 2007
| 9:00AM | 3:07-CR-00056-01-JWS | JudgeSedwick | Anchorage Courtroom 3 | |||||
USA vs. PETER KOTT
TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 10
I got into court just before the morning break. (I had some things to do that I'd been putting off and couldn't put off any longer.) Michael Carey caught me up. There'd been a debate among the attorneys about expert witnesses and now on the stand was Dr. Clive Thomas, a political science professor at the University of Alaska Southeast in Juneau. I know Clive somewhat - he recruited students for legislative internships and he keeps close touch with what is happening in the legislature.
I watched as he and defense showed charts of how a bill becomes law. The point seemed to be that Kott wasn't on any of the important committees and thus couldn't really influence the legislation the way the prosecutors had portrayed. There was something about the testimony that was different from most of the other testimony. Part of it was Dr. Thomas' informality. While he told the attorney, "You can call me Clive," (he called him Mr. Thomas), that informality also came across as a lack of respect to the court. While that lack of deference is not atypical among academics (I say this as one of them), it was very much in contrast to the deference all the other witnesses displayed toward the court. The prosecutor's cross exam made Dr. Thomas seem far less expert than the defense would have liked. Perhaeps the jury can get a college credit or two on American government after the trial.
The second witness, Peter Kott Jr. was a total contrast. This clean cut, nice looking man with what appeared to be Asian features was not the image I had when Pete Jr. had been mentioned in court. He was deferential, spoke easily, and seemed like a thoroughly likable man. He talked about being born at an air force base in Omaha and ending up in Alaska when he was 13. Started college at UAA, about 15 years later is still working on finishing the degree. He got trained by his uncles in Michigan to do hardwood floors and came back to Alaska to start a business that he owns with his Dad.
Pete Jr. was a good move by the defense. He is a stark contrast to the alcohol influenced, profanity laden speech that we've heard in the tapes the prosecution has shown us of Pete Sr. Pete Jr. talked about his family - at 23 he married a woman of 39 with three kids. They have added two more. He named each one and the ages.
He also talked about working on his Dad's campaign in 2006. The key point was that they "Never, never, never used polls, don't believe in them." As campaign manager in 2006 he never asked for a poll, it was never discussed, and he never saw it. The way he testified, I'm sure the jury has no reason to doubt his sincerity.
So what does it all mean? Well, even if Pete Kott had no influence in the legislature to do what Veco wanted, that really doesn't matter. The law, as I understand it, only cares if he took money with the understanding that he would use his position to favor the needs of those paying. Actually doing it doesn't matter. Whether he would have done it anyway doesn't matter. The point is he is already paid to be a legislator and shouldn't be taking money from others to do his job. Or to do special favors.
Pete Jr. softens the image of Pete Sr., but I'm not sure that anything he said affects the facts in the case. I'm sure they'll make the case that since he was the campaign manager and didn't order a poll, that Pete Sr. can't be seen as having asked for the poll. But he also says he was an unpaid campaign manager and that Deborah (the same Deborah that FBI Agent Milne yesterday said Kott lived with in Juneau?) and Jerry Mackie did get paid for working on the campaign. Pete Jr. didn't know how much Mackie got paid, but he thought it was a lot. And we know that Mackie ordered the poll from Dittman. So I don't think this will go anywhere either.
