What Will the Jury Do? [They said guilty on three counts]

[I did not go to court today. I didn't even listen to the news - I had a class this evening and didn't even think to check the news until I finished writing this last piece. But before posting it, I thought I'd check the ADN site. And my newspaper is here already - it's 3am - and it says guilty on all but the wire fraud. Well, it's over and I can go back to life as normal.]


Going through each count in the four previous posts, I realize several things:

1. I had my typed notes that I took in the court room to consult. I could go back and say, what did they say? And I could go to the ADN site and play the audio and video tapes to check. And tonight I even had the audio of the closing arguments to replay. And to hear how much I left out in my typing.

• The jury can ask to listen to the tapes, though from the judge's comments, it doesn't sound easy. They don't have a computer with links to all the audio and video they way they are posted on the ADN site. They'll have to go back into the court room to listen.
• The jury can check their notes, but seeing how sketchy mine were when I was typing full speed, and knowing how little note taking the jurors did, they aren't going to have much to go back to.
  
• And when I did go back to my notes, they reminded me of how much I forgot.
• But there are 12 of them, so maybe collectively they'll remember a lot more.

2. I think the that the audio and video were so powerful and such direct access to what happened, that these could trump everything said in the court room. These will stick in people's minds. Goeke even said you have unique evidence - the surveillance tapes - you the members of the jury have been able to sit in a ringside seat as they committed the crimes in the indictment. I also think of one point in the rebuttal where Marsh was emphasizing that Kott voted against the ppt bill so the higher tax rate wouldn't pass. He said something like, "He voted no, pushed the red button, nay..." and I remember seeing the red button and thinking how that image will stick in my mind more than the 'no' or 'nay.' So I think the tapes will probably be the major evidence for most people.

3. I think in the end, without good notes, their emotional response will matter. Whether they liked the attorneys, whether they liked Kott. My sense, based on how they laughed at times with the judge's jokes, is that they did like the judge. If they can figure out what he thinks, I suspect that would influence them. But he's done a great job of staying neutral and not tipping his hand.

4. And if the jury is feeling the way I do, they're going to be happy when this is over and they can get back to their normal lives.

Kott Trial - Conspiracy Charge

Conspiracy

For the conspiracy charge the jury has to agree that

• First, beginning in or about September 2005, and continuing until on or about August 30, 2006, there was an agreement between Bill Allen, Rick Smith, and Peter Kott to commit at least one crime as charged in the indictment;”

So, as a juror looking at this, I have to figure out - did they come together to agree to commit a crime? At first blush, it looks like they came together to get legislation passed. That in itself is not a crime, as Wendt emphatically told the jurors. Marsh, in the rebuttal, argued strongly that they had a plan and it was an illegal plan that linked getting the legislation passed to benefits for Kott, particularly a lobbying job when he got out of the legislature.

I think it would be a lot easier for the jury if it were a conspiracy to rob a bank. In that case it would be clear they were knowingly planning to commit a crime. In this case it is much more subtle. They never said, let’s commit bribery, extortion, and wire fraud. I wonder if Pete even knew what wire fraud is. The plans they discussed were getting ppt passed at 20/20, getting a gas pipeline in the long term, getting Kott a job when he left the legislature.

The jury is going to have to not think about the plan being simply about getting ppt passed - which they clearly did plan, and which Wendt said was 'the plan' - and think of the plan that Marsh described that linked the legislative work to the $7,993 check, the $1000 cash, the poll, and the future job. Or the plan to get Allen to pay for Pete Jr. working on Pete Sr.'s campaign, by setting up invoices that say it's for doing future flooring work.

In the Tom Anderson case I think it was clearer. They all knew they were setting up a scheme to launder money so that Cornell Enterprises could pay Anderson without people knowing where the money was coming from. Of course the jury wouldn’t know those details about Anderson, so would they think this way? Before I go too far, maybe I should read the rest of the instructions:

• Second, the defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing of at least one of its objects and intending to help accomplish it, and;

If we look at the other charges, they are bribery and extortion and wire fraud. So let me refocus. They worked out a way to get Kott money to pay for Peter Jr. to work on his campaign.

• Third, one of the members of the conspiracy performed at least one overt act for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy with all of you agreeing on a particular overt act that was committed.

The jury has lots of evidence that Kott took actions for Veco in the legislature. And that Allen made payments to Kott. This part shouldn't be a problem


Then the judge goes on:

• A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership - an agreement of two or more persons to commit one or more crimes. The crime of conspiracy is the agreement to do something unlawful; it does not matter whether the crime agreed upon was committed.

• It is not necessary that the conspirators made a formal agreement or that they agreed on every detail of the conspiracy. It is not enough however, that they simply met, discussed matters of common interest, acted in similar ways, or perhaps helped one another. You must find beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a plan to commit at least one of the crimes alleged in the indictment as an object of the conspiracy with all of you agreeing as to the particular crime which the conspirators agreed to commit.

I still expect that there will be jurors who will say, "Yes, they did exchange money for legislative work, but they didn't actually plan it. It just sort of evolved from the relationship." Or they might ask, what exactly does 'plan' mean? They never sat down and said, "OK, Kott, you do our bidding and we'll get you whatever you need." But others on the jury might counter with some examples from the tapes where Smith says, for instance, "You've got a job, now get us a bill."

Kott Trial - The Wire Fraud Charge

As I understand this, it basically relates to using interstate phone lines to plan your criminal action. This is based on a single phone call Kott made from Washington DC. Here's the link to the audio from the ADN website. - Audio:
Kott and Smith phone call - March 10, 2006

The jury instructions say:

Wire Fraud

• First, the defendant made up a scheme or plan to deprive the State of Alaska of its right to honest services;
• This would be, I think, the plan for Kott to do Veco's bidding with the understanding that he would be rewarded for that. The defense argued that the only plan was the one to promote the ppt bill in the legislature so that a gas pipeline would get built. And that, he said, was perfectly legal. Lobbyists work with legislators like that all the time. In the rebuttal, Marsh said,
  

Plan. people come to get together with common plan to get something. Wendt talked about them having a common plan. They can work together. It’s a crime when the lobbyists offer a benefit and the politician accepts the benefits knowing they are related to official acts. I respectfully submit to you to consider the words pk used with allen. Allegiance, I’ll get her done, and this is illuminating, pk described it as a team effort. You know who the roster of the team is? Count one of the indictment pk, ba, rs. [Now that the audio tapes of the closing arguments are available on the ADN website, I can see how sketchy my 'transcript' was. This section about the plan starts about halfway into this link. Part: 3 |]

• Second, the defendant acted knowingly and with the intent to deceive and deprive the state of Alaska of its right to honest services; and
• I would say that the defendant acted knowing that what he was doing was not legal based on things he said on the tapes, such as "I sold my soul to the devil" Even though Wendt made a valiant attempt to dismiss that as an expression people say without meaning it, or as boasting to Allen and Smith, it's pretty hard for the jury to ignore his own words here and other places on the tape.
  
• Third, the defendant made, or caused someone to make an interstate telephone call to carry out or to attempt to carry out the scheme or plan.
• There is the call from the DC restaurant, and Smith seems to be able to cause Kott to change his plan to work with the Marathon employee, Thierwechter, (spelling corrected from Thurwacker in previous posts after seeing how the ADN spelled it) he's meeting for dinner. It is one tiny part of the larger plan to get the 20.20 rate on the ppt bill.

• Fourth, the statements in the telephone conversation were in furtherance of the scheme or plan in that they were an important part of the scheme or plan.
• Ah, here's the rub. What exactly is 'important'? The defense dismisses it as a phone call made to get Thierwechter's phone number because he's late and Kott wants to make sure he's coming. While on that call, Smith finds out Kott is meeting with Thierwechter and tells him not to work with him because it would jeopardize the ppt bill. Kott says, "you know where my allegiance lies." But you can listen to the link at the top of this post and hear the call for yourself.

This seems to be the most tenuous of the charges. I would guess that it will depend on how the jury interprets 'important.'

Kott Trial - The Bribery Charge

Bribery

• First, the defendant was an elected official of the State of Alaska;
• This is not at issue

• Second, during the period between in or about September 2005 and August 30, 2006 the defendant corruptly solicited or demanded for the benefit of any person, or accepted or agreed to accept from a person, something of value, with all of you agreeing on what that thing was, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with a business, transaction, or series of transactions of the State of Alaska;
• This is very similar to the extortion charge. As I understand it, we have the same four items - the $7,993 check for flooring work that was used to pay for Peter Kott Jr.; The $1000 cash; the political polls; and the future lobbying job. And the jury has to believe that these were all in exchange for Kott's work in promoting their bills in the legislature. It doesn't matter whether the parts of the agreement are fulfilled, just that they agreed and understood this was the deal. So, even though he didn't get the lobbying job, that shouldn't matter. Even though he wasn't able to keep the ppt bill at 20/20, he said he would and he tried. Like with the extortion charge, if the jury has trouble with this, Kott's in good shape.

• Third, the business, transaction, or series of transactions involved something of value of $5,000 or more; and
• The poll and the $1000 in cash together are only $3500. But the job and the $7,993 check each would be over $5,000. All four also qualifies.
  

• Fourth, the State of Alaska received benefits in excess of $10,000 in calendar year 2006, pursuant to a federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of federal assistance.
  
• This just means that the State of Alaska gets more than $10,000 in money from the federal government. Clearly this is the case.
  

Again, this one seems pretty clear. Of course, you never know what a jury will think.

Kott Trial - The Extorion Charge

From the jury instructions:

Extortion

• First, the defendant was a public official;
• This is clear - Kott was an Alaska State Representative.
  

• Second, the defendant obtained property which he knew he was not entitled to, with all of you agreeing on what that property was;
• Prosecutor Goeke listed these in the closing:
• $7,993 check for flooring
• $1000 cash [payment for contribution to Murkowski]
• political polls
• lucrative job as a lobbyist for Veco

I think that the prosecution, using the tapes, using various invoices, and witness testimony, showed clearly that the $7,993 check was fiddled around with enough that it was clear that the money was for Kott to use to pay Peter Kott Jr. to be his campaign manager full time. At one point we were told the money was for work on a Sharon Durant's floor and Rick Smith's floor. Another time it was Bill Allen and Rick Smith's floors. And if it were really for flooring, how come the work still hasn't been done? Plus, Kott had the $30,000 in cash in his closet he could have used to pay his son if necessary, and there was $10,000 left over in campaign funds that could have been used.

It was clear the $1000 cash was given to Kott to reimburse him for a $1000 contribution Allen had asked Kott to make to the Murkowski campaign. Jurors could say he was just paying him back. Kott, in his testimony, said he only got $900. We heard testimony that Veco had a program for its employees where they got special bonuses which they were expected to contribute to specific political campaigns. It was pointed out this was illegal because it was in effect a corporate contribution which isn't allowed. Presumably, Allen had already given his limit, and this was a way for him to give more than his limit. But I don't recall that being pointed out. So some jurors may feel that this was just payback for the contribution. But I think the others will see this as Kott's gain.

Kott Jr. said the family didn't believe in polls, never ever used them. Kott said the same. But his consultant ordered the poll. Kott went over it in a phone call with Dave Dittman, and in one conversation confirming to Rick Smith he knew they'd had a poll done, he said something like, "And we may need a second one to see how the ad went."

I thought it was pretty clear that Kott was looking for a consulting job with Veco when he left the legislature. At one point he and Smith talked about it on tape. Kott mentioned Chris Knauss (Kott's former staffer who had been hired to lobby for Veco) and Kott said he wanted to be a lobbyist. But the stuff about being a prison warden in Barbados muddies things a bit. Someone testified that Barbados was a code word for the consulting job. Everyone knew he didn't want to be a warden, but it was a way to bring up the consulting job without asking directly.

But they don't need all four. Just one. But they have to agree on that one.

• Third, the defendant knew that the property was given in return for his agreement or understanding whether explicit or implicit, for taking some official action; and

I think the cumulative affect of all the tapes suggests there is an implicit agreement that Kott has access to favors from Allen (like the four things listed above) if he does a good job working bills through the legislature for Veco. In the May 6, 2006 audio tape, Kott asks Smith whether they have Weyhrauch (presumably to help with ppt). Then Kott says, well I hear he's asked you for a job.. This seems to link the idea of doing Veco's work in exchange for a job. There are long pauses where you wonder if Kott is sending esp messages to Smith saying, "And I'm gonna get one from you guys too, right?" A September 26, 2005 phone conversation between Kott and Smith has Kott saying, "I need a job." Smith says, "You've a got a job. Get us a pipeline." Smith, "What are you gonna do?" Kott: "I gonna be a consultant like Knauss." But you can take that to mean, "You've got a job, it's to get us a pipeline." But that would have problems for Kott too. You can judge for yourself.
Smith and Kott phone call - Sept. 26, 2005
The saving grace for the prosecution here, is that it says, "whether implicit or explicit" in the jury instructions.

• Fourth, commerce or the movement of an article or commodity in commerce from one state to another was affected in some way.

In his closing, Goeke said this was all about getting a gas pipeline, so that counts as interstate commerce. I guess if that is in debate, they can ask the judge.

I think this and the bribery charges are the easiest to convict on. If the jury has trouble with this one, Kott's going to be in good shape.

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.

Kott Trial - So What Does it All Mean?

Beats me.

I'm still trying to figure how to talk about the closing. There is one tidbit that might be revealing. Towards the end of his closing argument, as I was typing furiously, Defense Attorney Wendt was making his argument [again I warn you this is not complete, but the best I could track what was being said]

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.

Then he said:

And it’s not funny, sir.

I asked the person sitting next to me if one of the jurors had laughed. He hadn't seen anything or heard the comment.

Last night I asked my wife (who sat on the other side of the courtroom from me) about it. She said the juror with the long white beard smiled.

So this is the part where Wendt is telling the jurors what a hard working man Kott is and he's never asked for anything. And the juror smiles. Do you think he wasn't buying it. And how does that juror and the other jurors react to being admonished by the defense attorney?

Kott Trial Day 14 - Jury Instructions

During lunch the clerk's office lobby is open, but the office is closed. So I could use the computers, but not print out anything. So I just snapped pictures of the computer screen. The quality could be better, but you can see all the jury instructions. Page 1 is the cover and by itself. The rest are listed below. pp.2-3 are together, pp. 3-4, etc. The instructions for the specific charges are on p. 17 (Extortion), p. 19 (Bribery), p. 20 (Wire Fraud). I've left the pictures fairly large so you can double click on the pictures to read them easier. Starting with pages 12=13 I started fixing the brightness and contrast so they are even easier, though I wouldn't want to read this every day.

Table of Contents
Jury Instruction No 1 Duty of Juries to Find Facts and Follow Law p. 2
Jury Instruction No 2 Charge Against Defendant Not Evidence - Presumption of Innocence - Burden of Proof ...p. 3
Jury Instruction No 3 Defendant's Decision to Testify ...p. 4
Jury Instruction No 4 Reasonable Doubt Defined ...p. 5
Jury Instruction No 5 What is Evidence...p. 6
Jury Instruction No 6 What is not Evidence...p. 7
Jury Instruction No 7 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence ...p. 8
Jury Instruction No 8 Credibility of Witness...p. 9
Jury Instruction No 9 Evidence and Other Acts of the Defendant or Acts and Statements of Others...p. 10
Jury Instruction No 10 Separate Consideration of Multiple Accounts - Single Defendant..p. 11
Jury Instruction No 11 Statements by Defendant ...p. 12
Jury Instruction No 12 Impeachment Evidence - Witness ...p. 13
Jury Instruction No 13 Impeachment Evidence - Witness...p. 14 [No 12 is for Allen, 13 for Smith]
Jury Instruction No 14 Conspiracy - Elements ...p. 15
Jury Instruction No 15 Hobbes Act - Extortion Under Color of Official Right.. p. 17
Jury Instruction N0 16 Bribery of a State Official Relating to a Program Receiving Federal Funds..p. 19
Jury Instruction No 17 Wire Fraud-Scheme to Defraud- Deprivation of Right to Honest Services...p .20
Jury Instruction No 18 Duty to Deliberate ...p. 21
Jury Instruction No 19 Consideration of Evidence ...p. 22
Jury Instruction No 20 Use of Notes ...p. 23
Jury Instruction No 21 Jury Consideration of Punishment p. 24
Jury Instruction No 22 Verdict Forms...p. 25
Jury Instruction No 23 Communication with Court...p. 26

Cover Page, p. 1

Jury Instruction No 1 Duty of Juries to Find Facts and Follow Law p. 2

Jury Instruction No 2 Charge Against Defendant Not Evidence - Presumption of Innocence - Burden of Proof ...p. 3

Jury Instruction No 3 Defendant's Decision to Testify ...p. 4
Jury Instruction No 4 Reasonable Doubt Defined ...p. 5

Jury Instruction No 5 What is Evidence...p. 6

Jury Instruction No 6 What is not Evidence...p. 7


Jury Instruction No 7 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence ...p. 8
Jury Instruction No 8 Credibility of Witness...p. 9


Jury Instruction No 9 Evidence and Other Acts of the Defendant or Acts and Statements of Others...p. 10
Jury Instruction No 10 Separate Consideration of Multiple Accounts - Single Defendant..p. 11


Jury Instruction No 11 Statements by Defendant ...p. 12
Jury Instruction No 12 Impeachment Evidence - Witness ...p. 13


Jury Instruction No 13 Impeachment Evidence - Witness...p. 14 [No 12 is for Allen, 13 for Smith]
Jury Instruction No 14 Conspiracy - Elements ...p. 15


Jury Instruction No 14 continued ...p. 16
Jury Instruction No 15 Hobbes Act - Extortion Under Color of Official Right.. p. 17


Jury Instruction 15 continued ...p. 18
Jury Instruction N0 16 Bribery of a State Official Relating to a Program Receiving Federal Funds..p. 19


Jury Instruction No 17 Wire Fraud-Scheme to Defraud- Deprivation of Right to Honest Services...p .20
Jury Instruction No 18 Duty to Deliberate ...p. 21


Jury Instruction No 19 Consideration of Evidence ...p. 22
Jury Instruction No 20 Use of Notes ...p. 23


Jury Instruction No 21 Jury Consideration of Punishment p. 24
Jury Instruction No 22 Verdict Forms...p. 25


Jury Instruction No 23 Communication with Court...p. 26

Kott Trial Day 14 - Prosecution Closing II

Nicholas Marsh took over for the final part of the prosecution's closing argument.

[Added Sept 25 - audio links to Mr. Marsh's rebuttal, from the ADN website
Prosecutor rebuttal, Nicholas Marsh: - Part: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 ]

11:43am Nick Marsh:

Court is going to instruct, this is your case to decide. We aren’t supposed to ram things down your throat. I’d like to talk about evidence.

Wendt said pk never took anything from these men. Respectfully, we know he got $1000 in cash $7K in check, a poll. We know he got them from ba. Did you believe that pk never got anything from these gentleman? Does that make any sense with what you heard?

First talk about credibility. Govt. views this as a case about public trust. Mr. K. repeatedly violated the public trust by doing his job and getting paid by ba and rs and knowing he’d get a job at the end. Also about garden variety of trust. We request you do that especially with Kott.

pk - you’ve heard 11 months of recordings, but all those are lies, not true, or rantings of alcoholic. What he wants you to believe instead, what he told you on the stand.

Voting record - pk wants you to believe, because he told you. He decided that 22% was the right rate. When it first came up, he voted no because it was an important bill and he wanted an absent colleague, mr Moses to be there. After he voted yes because he thought 22% was the right thing. But neither was true.

In between those votes, exhibit. 135 to reopen the bill and vote on 22.5, if he really wanted Moses to vote on that, pk would have voted yes. On Aug 10, 9:11 pm he voted no, not giving Moses another bite at the apple. He said because of his deep seated commitment. He voted no, red button. Nay. After voting closed and it passed 23-17. Vote didn’t matter. He’s running for reelection. Then he said I’m going to change my vote, change from nay to yeah> When he said that, do you believe him?

Same thing in May special session. Lot of votes pk didn’t provide. By the way G. says, absolutely the voting record backs up our case. Other votes in June that wendt didn’t mention.

Didn’t tell you about early votes kott cast to keep votes low. When he did BW rescinding vote, pk made that motion to keep that rate from going up from 20/20.

[talking quietly and gently. but starting to get louder. Looking the jury in the eye]

Tape: We’re gonna get weyhracuh. Gotta do 21 to keep them from getting 22.5? Yeh. That’s what I figured. It’s still 20/20.

That’s what pk was telling rs. When he told him he put it to 21. Not because he believed the 21%, he was trying to kill the amendment. Kelly withdrew the amendment. It had the effect. At the end of may, they couldn’t have house get 22.5, because they would have concurrence with senate.

Mr. K told you he really believed in 21%, but amendment was withdrawn and it went back to 20/20. If he really believed in that, wouldn’t he have introduced 21.5?. But he didn't’

In june Kott came back and said he was for 20/20 and what he did that day, allowed them all to come back in a later session and get 20/20. And what he did, that mr. k mentioned on the stand, but wendt glossed over. Mr. Kott, moved to adjourn the house at the end of session on June 8. He didn’t want EB to reconsider. They could kill it at a higher rate. If you consider the notion that he didn’t have power. Think about whether you don’t have to have power to shut down the house.

Rep LeDoux said he was 20/20 that’s what he works for. But here today, he was really in favor of the vote that didn’t go the way he wanted. Choices he didn’t know they were being recorded.

Also on credibility. Explanation of $5000. Loan for a truck. No interest rate. No time to pay it back. Whenever he paid the truck. During all the time til Aug 31, pk hadn’t paid back a dime. You know he had $30K in cash in his closet. Does this make sense it was a loan. If you can’t believe on how he voted in office, or about the loan, or about...., what can you believe kott on.

$7,993 pay. Does it make sense he needed it? You’ve seen invoices. X amount added in. Heard phone calls to make a foolproof plan. In trial, pk and family gave you a different story. to do the floor. I admit things that don’t make any sense, invoices, inconsistency. Doesn’t make sense relation to state of the floors.

But timing. Stovern prepared it July 29 that I got the call, $7,993 for the work, If that were the case, this whole deal for the money would have been on July 29. Why are they talking about this on July 30. The conversation about how to pay son was after they got the money. ?? .....
That invoice never made it to veco? Wouldn’t pk have found a way to get that extra invoice to rs? Ms. Stovern told you the way she got paid was through a company name she put on letter head, because she didn’t think it would look good. The way she sought the payment was through something that was patently false.

If it were about flooring, then wouldn’t you think he’d tell that to the FBI on Aug. 30. But that is not what happened. Left with Aug. 30 phone call, that shows money never for real work.

Back to thing about never getting anything from these gentlemen. For him to go to Uncle bill with his hand out, that was a gift. He had $30,000 in cash. Poll, Mackie talked to Mr. Kott about the poll. Mr. Kott said great. talked to pollster about it. pk acknowledged to rs he got a poll. Mackie and I are thinking about getting a secon poll after the media run to see if it was successful. Why would someone who doesn’t believe in polls talk about getting a second one?

$1000 in cash. Wendt suggested not payback. Of course it was. Mr. Allen never told Mr. Kott he never told pk he would pay him back. When pk wrote the check, he never knew would get paid. Getting it when henever knew he would be paid, that’s a gift.

Plan. people come to get together with common plan to get something. Wendt talked about them having a common plan. They can work together. It’s a crime when the lobbyists offer a benefit and the politician accepts the benefits knowing they are related to official acts. I respectfully submit to you to consider the words pk used with allen. Allegiance, I’ll get her done, and this is illuminating, pk described it as a team effort. You know who the roster of the team is? Count one of the indictment pk, ba, rs.

Employment. That’s what’s hanging over all of this. W tried to .. PK says I need a job. RS says you’ve got a job, get the pipeline. Wouldn’t you expect if he thought it wasn’t fair, he should have said no. He spoke about chris knauss. Don’t you think pk knew what they were talking about. And then the implicit stuff. How many times did you hear Barbados. BA told you what that meant.

And just in case you wondered whether pk linked jobs and votes: We gonna get bw. I hear he applied for a job with you. May 5 Not rs making the connection, it’s pk. Do you think he doesn’t know a job is waiting for whoever wanted it if they get the pipeline.

Btween april 18 and May 7 , never heard any tape about ppt. Well you did. BW was in the finance committee. pk was knee deep the whole time. You have to know the whole story.

Things you heard pk did. From LeDoux and EB they never heard threatened or pressured. Those aren’t words you;ll see in the jury instructions. What it means, is he does what he does in his office because they were his job, but because the people who were paying him or wre going to pay him, wanted him to do it.
What you see pk do something in these tapes, every time he supports 20/20, everytime he does something he goes back to them, he wants credit for doing it, because he knows these people will take care of him at the end.
12:12pm

Instructs you on corrupt means, those are the instructions, not what I tell you or what Wendt tells you. You’re left with recordings, real time recordings. Testimony of witnesses, one pk. said countless times, BA never lied. Does it corroborate what you heard on the tapes. What they said on the stand, did they tell you a different story.

End with overwhelming evidence pk used and abused his official role for ba and rs, that he knowingly received things of value, got paid by rs to do things in the legislature.

Thank you. [12:14]

Kott Trial Day 14 - Defense Closing

I've put a long introduction on the first of today's posts - the Prosecution Closing I. Read that for all the caveats and disclaimers. These are rough, typed in court notes. They give you a sense of what was said, but they ARE NOT RELIABLE. Parts are missing. The attorneys spoke faster than my fingers can type.

Again, go here if you want to find the actual audio and video tapes that match those mentioned here.

[Added Sept. 25 - Links to the audio of Mr. Wendt's Closing. From the ADN website.
Defense attorney, Jim Wendt:
- Part: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 ]




10:11 Wendt [lead defense attorney] - 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.

It is true what you heard in the opening from the worthy attorney from DC this is about trust. They want you to think that pk violated the government’s trust. He hasn’t violated any trust. Always held to his principles. He was a hard worker. Whether putting himself to school, in the service , grad school, on his knees putting in flooring, in the legislature, he was a hard worker.

This principle of hard work is the bedrock of what pk is about. Everything towards a goal and he wants to get that goal. He’s never asked anyone for anything. He’s worked for what he has. Corrupt? We all have our own definition. PK is not a corrupt individual. Not about trust, but about work.

Remember what EB said about legislation. it’s like sausage, you don’t want to see it being made. It may not be pretty but that’s how it’s made . Not pretty.

I want to go over the case:

Wit. 1 - called by govt. very interesting, knowledgeable guy. Pleasure to hear him speak about ppt and explain. When he was working on ppt he was part of admin. He supported 20/20.

Some witnesses I don’t understand why called.

Sudan Lowell - said pk was speaker of the house

STeve Dunphy: fbi agent - here for one purpose to sit on stand while all govt tapes they wanted you to see, about 58 tapes entered into evidence. in cross exam, agent dunphy said there about 1500 calls intercepted on ba’s phone. About 6500 on ba’s cell and about 9000 on rs cell phone. About 17,500 phone calls and you had 58 tapes, maybe 40 phone calls. You can bet the 40 most damaging one s have been presented. In addition there were video taping from janu to mid june. 12-16 hours some days, others no video at all. Maybe an average of four a day = >600 hours of video. You got , what, less than ten hours. That is what AGent dunphy was here to do

Carla here just to enter travel docs to show pk was outside of ak when he made the phone call

BA and RS - talk later

Brooke Miles - about packet sent to all legislators
Linda Croft = BA’s secretary had written two checks
Jennifer Ferguson about checks going thru the Key bank
Dave Ditmann
Bruce Milne -FBI agent, pk said he did nothing wrong. $7,993 so my son could work on my campaign.

And that was the govt.’s case.

Before I go to our case, want to show what govt. didn’t show you. They could have brought in legislators, but they didn’t. Mentioned three legs Gab. LeDoux, EB, and Fred Dyson. Claimed PK held up Dyson’s abortion bill. Where is that? It doesn’t exist. Didn’t happen. Talked about it, but it didn’t happen. He voted to get it out of committee before ppt became an issue. pk never told Sen dyson anything. They could have brought dyson in to testify about it. pk did nothing to harm that bill, but instead voted it out of committee and voted for it on the floor.

pk did one thing only, voted to get the ppt bill the way he wanted. We presented legis for you to see exactly what he did. Rep LeDoux said that is what we do, we talk to people about legislation. EB said he had no control over Croft or Crawford. Prosecution suggested pk used trickery. Why didn’t govt bring in these legislators? Because they don’t support the govt’s case. The legis who were allegedly manipulated by pk weren’t. It was not good for a legislator to come in to testify for the defense, but we brought them in and they came.

Govt. didn’t bring in actual legislators, rested their case on ba and tapes.

They didn’t tell you about pk’s voting record. Because his record doesn’t support their theory. We brought it in and went over it line item by line item on PPT. Showed his voting record on other bills. You saw he never did anting contrary to his principles. Pro-labor and pro development. He’s never changed.

Govt. didn’t present his voting record because it doesn’t support their case. They didn’t bring it in. We did.

We brought in

Dr. Clive Thomas - talked about legislature - stage for what Pete Kott could and couldn’t do.

Peter Kott - he was determined to finish the flooring jobs
Brooke Miles - showed the pk made $1000 contribution to Mrk campaign the day he allegedly got $1000 from ba

PK answered all the questions even when they were shouted at him

LeDoux
Ohmer - nice woman, worked for pk for many years. RS upset one day and pk not changing. and that pk had a drink. What you see on these tapes is pk drinking, not on the floor of the house sober working for his constituents.

I told you what pk did not do. Now I’m going to tell you what he did do.
You’ve heard a lot of tapes and phone conversations. Exposed not only to picked out tapes, even portions cherry picked out of context. What I have now is an illustrative dramatization that shows when things are taken out of context. Dim the lights please.

10:29 Technical difficulties - power point, trying to get it started.

10:30 didn’t work

Power point - Walk thru highlights

Sept 05- Aug 2006

Making time line
9/26/05 - initial call pk, says, i wanna job - He’s asked, what do ya need. You gotta job, get us a pipeline. I wanna be a consultant like Knauss.
That is it. This is indicative of pk asking for a job from VEco. There are 1000s of phone calls and this is all they’ve got. He’s not a legislator now, it’s out of session, he’s putting in flooring at the gym in Kake. Out of communication. Not in Junau, ER, Anchorage, he’s in Kake.

Happy New Years call - to get instructions. There are none to give. There’s no ppt bill, he’s been out of the loop in Kake, and calling the man he relies on for the man he trusts for oil and gas information. What does that mean - what are my instructions? - does that mean tell me what to do an I will do it? It means, “I wanna hear from you, your an older and wiser man, what do you think? I wanna hear from you.” I’m doing this with Ms. Simonian who you probably figured out is a lot more aware political than I. I don’t know about that Would you think it unusual if I leaned over and asked Ms. Simonian and asked, “What do I do now?” He just wants to talk to ba, hear what he has to say about upcoming legs.

June 11, - call about getting the gasline. PK always for gas pipeline. You’ve seen his campaign literature from 2002 and 2004 he’s always been for a pipeline. And that’s the discussion here on June 11. At this time talking about common goal. Gov. not helping much

June 14 another call. Here, rs says to pk 25% might kill us. pk says 25 is done. He’s saying at 25% we’re not gonna have a pipeline. If you listen what he actually says is, then we’re dead so is the state.

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.
Feb 21, 2006 Gov. introduces ppt bill. PK has nothing to do with it cause he’s not on any of those committees.
3/10 phone call - yes, call to get a phone number. No question about that. When pk calledspeciclly asked, got thurwacker’s number. Then T comes in. the T talks to rs. What happens then? Call is minimized. Because fbi doesn’t think it interesting to listen to. Nothing unusual about it. Had there been, then the call wouldn’t have been minimized. then T gets off and off hand conversation about what they’re going to do about Marathon, idle chatter, we gotta get an exemption, rs I’ don’t really like them. Mentions $73million, min revenue before ppt kicks in - they already have some sort of exemption. When you listen to whole tape - you’re my best buddy, I’ve got a lot of best buddies. Govt. wants you to think that’s wire fraud. Where’s the plan or scheme in the phone conversation There is none.
3/15 [all these being added to dark blue background power point slide with yellow boxes.] pk stating to rs and ba what and why he believes. You don’t here him saying, “this is great I’m going to get a good job.” No, this is what we need, if we don’t get it, long term Alaskans will suffer. That’s what he says.

April -May slide
4/ Barbados call. This is the call where the govt says PK tied everything together. You guys are going to get the pipeline and I’ll get my nice job in barbados. That’s what the gov. says. But let’s listen to phone call - apparently we have a problem here, this is not working. It’s working on the computer. Perhaps I can talk about something else and you put the other computer on.

To the jury. Apparently we’ve switched computers. I’ll continue with my closing and then we’ll get back to this. Lights?

actually this is a good time to take a break and come back. Room 604, the Animal House. Well known. 100’s of hours of video and you know, it wasn’t just pk who went there. RS and ba inviting anyone to come up who wanted. Lobbyists, legislators, staff members. What was it? A place for boasting and banter, fueled by alcohol. Boasting and banter. And that’s the core of the govt’s case. Govt. resting its case on the animal house as though what goes on there is somehow reliable. Granted it was among men who should have known better . ba and rs blameless? No. Both had over $400K in

pk has $11,000. Not only were they risking their freedom and their children’s freedom and Veco if it were indicted as a corporation. A full account of that is not presented here, but it has to wait till another day. You know about the house renovation, pig roast and other things hinted at. They weren’t worried about this case. They weren’t worried about that.

PK is the one man who never took anything. BenStevens had contract for $100K. Tom Anderson had a contract. Sen. STevens had his whole house redone. While PK was on his hands and knees doing flooring. These other guys didn’t have to do any work. He didn’t ask for a dime, he didn’t ask for a job then. The govt. is taking from 100’s of hours of tape they are taking out a few innocent conversations out of context and comparing that to these other men who got so much from ba and rs. PK never got anything. That’s what happened, in essence in the animal house. You don’t thing there are tapes you havnt heard of these other men getting their share? Just pk drinking too much. Things that don’t comport with the voting records

Look at screen. Is it gonna work. If you take something out of context.

starting up. black screen. back to power point. Bak to black screen. power point. black.. arrow going around the screen.
Apparently it doesn’t work. Does the audio work?

And I get... on the screen. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work, I’ll just have to read it to them.

This is what I’d like you to do, if you will

can we turn off screen off?

W: talking about Barbados and the pipeline. hold on a second here.

Simonion to Wendt - one more

Tape working- Barbados tape.

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.

10:58 April 26, 2006 -

5/7/2006 first time bill hits the floor, Between 4/18 and May 7 you have no tapes. Nothing there. First time pk can vote ont he bill. passed out of finance. 5/6/ I apologize. Passes out of House Finance. They reduced it to 20%. PK had nothing to do with that. now it’s back in front of the house.

May 7 floor debate [power point up May7-9, 2006]

This is not part of power point, but part of the exhibit. You haven’t seen this, but its been talked about. We went line item by line item, you saw that. attached is the actual house journal, you’ll have the whole thing in the jury room This is the house journal that ties into those items. Amendment, raising the 20% to 21%. The infamous BW votes wrong. You can see the yeas and nays. PK voted no. 21.5% passed. Interesting. LeDoux changed to yeah. Original 20-20. For whatever reason, we don’t know why, GL switched from nay to a yeah. After ward. She didn’t switch for the jury. Nothing on the tape about getting Gabrielle to do this for us. this Ms. LeDoux does this and it passes. You don’t hear any of that.

Back to power point now?

Call to rs. I’m going to do rescinding motion Pete calls rs and says 21.5 passed, i’m going to do a rescinding motion. Doesn’t ask rs what to do? He tells rs what he’s going to do. What occurs is rs says to do it tomorrow and he says, “I’m going to do it today.”

[Plays tape. It works!!!] [I think BA said ‘yeah Gabrielle...’ if so, that contradicts what Wendt just said, check the tape. Discussion of who is going to make the motion, better to do it right away.

OK, then there was motion. to rescind passes 22-18. [Looking at Journal on screen]
Can we get back to powerpoint

Back to 20% amendment failed.

[back to journal[ let’s go to next one

[powerpoint] relates to phone call march that govt says is wire fraud. pk votes yes, remember that was what rs originally didn’t want to go thru.

Power point...

Now adjourned may 10. room 604. This is where pk tells rs and ba what he did. I’m gonna tell you how this really came down. you can’t tell a soul, I told EB we can mess this up real good expletives deleted. He’s tell them he got this done, but we know that isn’t true because they were always against it.

I sold my soul to the devil. If you were going to listen to this as though he’s done something illegal. rs what did you do. “I did something with eb that wasn’t totally above board. That wasn’t true. To get ppt. passed.

5/8/ We’re still brand new here. pk says, we’re going to have to go higher. We don’t have this one? that’s ok. to RS

We’re going to have to go to 21. So he’s not sticking with 20%. He’s telling them what is going to have to happen. Working towards a compromise. Hopefully to get a bill that will get a gas pipeline.

May 8 in 604. talk about staying at 20%. Kott says I don’t want to jeopardize pipeline, I’ll stay at 20 and so will others, but I’m not going to jeopardize pipeline.

11:15am Am2 to Am1 offered by kott. He’s given up on 20%, it’s only been there a day and he gives up. And it passes at 21. What is this? OK

Then kelly withdraws and it goes back to 20. But pk voted for 21.

May 8-9 slide

Rates now 21.5 [The power point stuff just isn’t working right, lots of side talk to Smonian (other defense attorney)]

Pete kott votes yes! 21.5 he’s voting yes. He’s not sticking with Vic Kohring and the nays. Next screen.
And then it passes the house. 21.5 PK votes yes. May 9 is the last day of the session

[back to journal on the screen]

28 yes 11 nays you can see pk voted yes. He’s voting for 21.5. Kohring stays at 20. Next screen. Keep in mind, we’re the ones who showed you the voting record. If we hadn’t shown you, all you’d have is the bragging in the tapes.

May 10-June 9

Ohh. this is giving him a thousand dollars in the hotel. And what occurs here. BA specifically says here, you can listen to the tape. Thanks for doing me with your check. He’s paying him back. pk wrote a check to Murkowski for $1000 and BA is paying him back. The govt. didn’t tell you that.

Sen. Bill passes the house at 23.5. PK thinks it to high. 21.5 ok. House rejects conference report.

bragging to bowles. Allen bragging I don’t know who bowles is - senior person with oil.[Jim Bowles is president of Conoco Phillips Alaska,]

June 9- August 10

Offers to do flooring free. BA insists on paying

secret meeting in the bar. Had to go to bar where things not recorded, out in public.

hb 3001 passes the house, pk votes yes. This is important. This is the sliding scale, ba didn’t want it, but pk goes with sliding scale. passes senate at 22.5%

PK says ok 22.5 we have a workable bill. aug 10 special session ends. No conversations about ppt with pk at this time because they don’t help the govts. case.

PK did what he always does. He worked to get legislation passed. He wasn’t working for BA. PK didn’t hold tight to 20/20 when he saw it wouldn’t work. That’s what passed and that’s what we have today.

He may have gone to the animal house, drinking and boasting, but none of that matches what actually happened. We showed you the voting records, they didn’t. They used rs and ba, don’t you think those men desperately want to avoid jail time? If I were a betting man, I think that neither will see a day in jail. Basically, I think ba is an honest man. He wans’t giving pk $1000 as a bribe. Maybe he thinks it will help him get out of jail.
BA says sometimes he’d get up at 6 am and didn’t come back til 7pm because he was out paying his bills. Anyone who works like pk I have a lot of respect. Did you remember a conversation about a lobbyist at your home that wasn’t recorded? When pk got the floors done and I said, what do I owe you and he said “nothing.” PK didn’t want to take his money, but for pk he was uncle bill, He had millions of dollars and people came to him for his money, but pk didn’t have a business association with his friends.

PK was a worker. He may have been a drinker and when he drank he shoots his mouth off, but he was a worker. A man who always wanted a pipeline. If ba disagreed with him on pers/trs and workers comp, that was too bad. pk voted his conscience.

BA was knowledgeable about gas and oil. pk loved him got oil and gas info from him. Been through a hard life. got enormous wealth. Ba is a nice fellow. Don’t know about rs. That’s what pk thought about ba. He loved the man. You don’t think there was any time he couldn’t ask ba for money or a job and wouldn’t have gotten it? he could have at any time and sat in a comfortable chair.

I want to go over with you the jury instructions:

One thing, very interesting instruction, direct and circumstantial evidence. When direct evidence contradicts circumstantial evidence and it isn’t rebutted. then the direct trumps circum. And the voting record is the direct.

Witness manner when you testify. You remember rs, I’d ask a question and he’d look over at these gentleman or his attorney. The witnesses interest in his jail sentence. He was hoping if he did ok, he wouldn’t see a day in jail. they say, there was no agreement. When pk’s house was raided? found an invoice for 5500. It was already prepared. They didn’t know they were going to be raided. There is evidence that contradicts there testimony. Pk’s son truthfully testified and it contradictis. [talking really fast now] I would argue that rs’s testimony is not reasonable. He changed many times.

Statements by the defendant. and how to evaluate those. one thing judge will tell you is to consider all the evidence and the circumstanes. You need to eval circ. under which he made the statements. He was intoxicated and trying to impress uncle bill. In reality he’s compromising and getting ac compromised bill. Fact that ba and rs is not evidence against pk and you can weight that only to evaluate their credibility

Extortion, conspiracy.
Conspiracy, not enough to just meet, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a plan to commit a crime. there was no plan to commit a crime. The plan was to pass the legislation. How can we get it passed. That was the plan. getting the ppt legislation passed

Extortion - do you really think pk really extorted money from ba? We are torturing the English language to say that. What official action did he take? If you think the poll was given to pk and he got it, then you have to prove he did it in exchange for something specific. You have to tie it in to an act. They can’t do that. It may be an illegal gratuity, but he isn’t charged with that.

Bribery. They have to prove that pk was corrupt. Def. acted voluntarily and intentionally......That’s what corrupt is. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That he did it in connection in his head in connection with doing a legislative act.

And then the wire fraud. And if that telephone call is wire fraud, I don’t know shaking head... You think that was an important part of scheme or plan. firs there was no plan, they were just trying to get legislation passed.

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 moth. 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.
I’m asking, go back, come back with not guilty verdicts. This man has suffered enough. Maybe he drinks too much and swears too much but that’s the only bad thing this man has done in his life.