It's Fall Already - Yellow Leaves, Termination Dust, and Rich Compost

Two weeks of trial
Didn't notice green go gold
Some leaves fall to ground










Thursday dinner done
Walking out of Thai Kitchen,
more snow on Chugach.















May

Winter mulch gathered
into summer compost piles
letting nature play

End of September

Grass, veg kitchen scraps,
Join leaves, water, in the piles
Turned sometimes for air















Natural heat first,
Then compost workers appear
Rich black soil results














Once again we say
good bye Alaska summer
Equinox less light

Pete Kott Trial - Department of Justice Press Release

Below is the Department of Justice press release on the Kott Trial. While they list the charges Kott was found guilty of, they neglect to mention that he was found not guilty of wire fraud.

The also call PPT "Petroleum Production Tax." There is a page on the governor's office website lingering from the Murkowski Administration that also calls it the Petroleum Production Tax, but everything else, including people involved in the Kott trial, called it Petroleum Profit Tax. They seem to puff it all up a bit. It's a good thing the DOJ attorneys are more careful with the details than than their press room.

They also note that Allen and Smith "pleaded guilty in May 2007 to providing more than $400,000 in corrupt payments to public officials from the state of Alaska."

• Kott got about $11,500 (the poll, the $7,992 check, and the $1000 in cash).
• Ben Stevens got about $200,000 in consulting fees for doing "not a lot."
  
• Kohring got $1000.
  
• One to four workers to work on Ted Stevens' house for a couple of months. Roughly at $20/hour for 40 hours a week, for three months, for two workers that would be just under $20,000.
  
• Murkowski got a $20,000 poll that came out in the trial.
  

If we add all these up we can account for about $250,000. That leaves another $150,000 unaccounted for. We know he paid Tom Anderson about $2500/month for six months, but that wasn't during the legislative session, and Anderson wasn't charged on this. If I recall correctly, Weyhrauch was charged with arranging for a job, but he never got it or paid, so that shouldn't count in this. There are the other polls Veco did for other Alaskan politicians that were mentioned in the trial. So it would seem there may be some more surprises to come beyond what we already know.

Anyway, here's the press release.


______________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CRM
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 (202) 514-2008
WWW.USDOJ.GOV TDD (202) 514-1888

FORMER ALASKA STATE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
PETER KOTT CONVICTED ON PUBLIC CORRUPTION CHARGES

WASHINGTON – A federal jury in Anchorage, Alaska, has found former Alaska state representative and former Alaska Speaker of the House Peter Kott guilty of bribery, extortion and conspiracy for corruptly soliciting and receiving financial benefits from a company in exchange for performing official acts in the Alaska State Legislature on the company’s behalf, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division announced today.

Peter Kott, a member of the Alaska House from 1992 to 2006, who also served as Speaker of the House from Jan. 1, 2003 to Dec. 31, 2004, was convicted yesterday following a 15-day jury trial in Anchorage, before U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick of the District of Alaska. The jury found Kott guilty of conspiracy, extortion under cover of official right, and bribery.

Kott was arrested following the unsealing of an indictment on May 4, 2007, charging him, one former and one current Alaska representative with various public corruption offenses. Kott faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison on the extortion charge, a maximum sentence of 10 years on the bribery charge, and a maximum sentence of five years on the conspiracy charge. Sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 7, 2007.

“This verdict is an important victory for the people of Alaska, who deserve to expect honest, ethical representation from their elected officials,” said Assistant Attorney General Fisher. “I thank the prosecutors and the FBI and IRS agents who worked on this case. Their effort shows that the Department of Justice will work hard to bring to justice any elected officials who betray their duties to their constituents.”

“The jury has found that Mr. Kott accepted bribes from VECO in exchange for his official acts as a member of the Alaska State Legislature. The citizens of Alaska have the right to responsible public officials representing their interests rather than filling their own coffers,” said Deputy Assistant Director Daniel D. Roberts, FBI Criminal Investigative Division. “Battling public corruption at all levels of government is one of the FBI’s top investigative priorities, and no corrupt public official is exempt from FBI scrutiny.”

At trial, the jury heard evidence that Kott, while serving as a member in the state legislature, solicited bribes from and took action to benefit the financial interests of VECO Corporation, a major Alaska oil services company. Trial evidence, including more than 60 recordings of conversations involving Kott and former VECO executives, showed that Kott repeatedly promised to cast votes in VECO’s favor on a key petroleum production tax proposal pending before the Alaska legislature. In exchange, Kott received cash, checks and the promise of a future job with VECO.

The VECO executives who testified at trial, former Chief Executive Officer Bill J. Allen and former Vice President of Community Affairs and Government Relations Richard L. Smith, pleaded guilty in May 2007 to providing more than $400,000 in corrupt payments to public officials from the state of Alaska. Currently, two other defendants have been charged in connection with the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation, including former Housemembers Victor H. Kohring and Bruce Weyhrauch. Thomas T. Anderson, a former elected member of the Alaska state House of Representatives, was convicted in July 2007 of extortion, conspiracy, bribery and money laundering for soliciting and receiving money from an FBI confidential source in exchange for agreeing to perform official acts to further a business interest represented by the source.

This case was prosecuted by trial attorneys Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, headed by Chief William M. Welch, II, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke from the District of Alaska. The case is being investigated by the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigative Division.

# # #

The Difference Between Professionals and Amateurs

Well, while the real journalists were waiting for the verdict at the court yesterday, I was catching up with my life. I spent a good part of the morning getting a crown on a tooth that broke. Stopped in at the university to work on the Healing Racism in Anchorage newsletter. And then met with a student in the early evening. I put the trial out of my mind, never had the radio on, and when I got home I got back on to try to do something with all the left over thoughts about the trial still in my head. When I finally finished it was 3am and just before posting I thought, well, let me check if there was a verdict on the ADN website. I really didn't think there'd be.

Boy did I feel sheepish when I found out 12 hours after the verdict was announced. The professional journalists were there as they were throughout the trial. One of the things I learned and it makes me feel good about Alaska, is that the tv journalists were there and writing their own stories. Bill McAllister of Channel 2 was there all the time as was Matthew Simonof Channel 11. It's nice to know we have real journalists who write their own stories and not just people who read the teleprompter. I've already talked here about the ADN news folks, Lisa Demer, Sean Cockerham, Michael Carey, and Rich Mauer, and APRN's Steve Heimel and David Shurtleff. And I also got names the names of the two artists who have illustrated the inside of the court where cameras were not allowed: Pat Gillin for Channel 2 and Tamara Ramsey for Channel 11 whose photo at the door of the Federal Building I posted the other day. And Shannon Moore of KUDO. And there were others who in my ignorance, I never identified.

My hat's off to you all. Thanks for treating this amateur journalist with such kindness and support. And let's not talk about how long it took me to find out the verdict, ok?


Bottom photo: Waiting for the Kotts after the trail Monday.



,

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?