04202021 - News Article - Former Portage mayor seeking third shot at beating federal bribery charge

 

Former Portage mayor seeking third shot at beating federal bribery charge

NWI Times

Apr 20, 2021

https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-portage-mayor-seeking-third-shot-at-beating-federal-bribery-charge/article_05655a52-1311-5713-bcac-eed8ec6aca90.html

HAMMOND — One month after being found guilty a second time on the same federal bribery charge, former Portage Mayor James Snyder has asked the judge to reverse the jury's latest finding or at least grant him a third trial.

"The prosecution presented one theory of culpability at trial: that Mr. Snyder rigged the public bidding process for the award of five automated garbage trucks, and did so in exchange for a bribe of $13,000. The prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that theory proven beyond a reasonable doubt," Snyder's legal defense team argues in its request for acquittal.

The defense is seeking the opportunity to argue its requests before the judge in person or remotely.

Snyder, 43, a Republican, is scheduled to be sentenced July 1 by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly of the Northern District of Illinois, who was brought in to oversee the local case.

Former Portage Mayor James Snyder on Friday was again found guilty on a federal bribery charge, stemming from accusations he accepted a $13,000 check from a local trucking firm seven years ago to corruptly influence the purchase of $1.125 million in garbage trucks.

The defense cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, which it argues says the court "must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction."

The defense claims that the prosecutor's case failed as a legal theory and failed on the facts.

"There is no general 'corruption' crime, under which if a prosecutor (or jury) generally feels that an official did something wrong, the official gets convicted," according to the motion submitted by defense attorney Jackie M. Bennett Jr.

He goes on to say that prosecutors failed to show the check Snyder received was a bribe or a reward.

"The prosecution did not present any evidence that came anywhere close to touching upon the central question in this case," Bennett argues. "Instead, the prosecution did what the Seventh Circuit says should not happen, leaving an 'evidentiary void' at the heart of a case, thereby encouraging 'guesswork' and 'speculation' to fill the void."

Snyder was found guilty of accepting a $13,000 check from Great Lakes Peterbilt in Portage seven years ago to corruptly influence the purchase of $1.125 million in garbage trucks.

Bennett said in his motion for acquittal that no evidence was presented at trial showing Snyder used his office to benefit the trucking firm.

"Under our system of justice, no one can be convicted of a crime based on a 'maybe,' ” the motion argues. "Since the prosecution failed to present evidence from which a jury could find all the elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we respectfully request that the Court grant Mr. Snyder’s Rule 29 motion."

New trial sought

The defense also filed a motion seeking a new trial.

"A jury verdict has been overturned once in this matter, relating to 'irregularities' in the prosecution's conduct. One might expect that a prosecution insisting on a second trial would be beyond reproach in its conduct and tactics at that trial; but that was not the case," Snyder's legal team said at the start of the multicount motion.

"Mr. Snyder acknowledges that no one is guaranteed a perfect trial, just a fair one," Bennett said. "But the retrial in this matter did not meet the fundamental requirement of fairness."

The motion goes on to challenge prosecutor's decision to call witness Randall Evans, a former deputy commissioner for the state’s Department of Insurance, claiming it knew Evans would present false testimony and yet action by the judge failed to defuse the prejudice. 

"The Court issued a mid-trial instruction on Evans's testimony," the defense said. "The Court declined, however, to grant the defense's motion to strike his testimony entirely. Instead, the Court instructed the jury to disregard Evans’s statements insofar as they specifically stated that one needed to register before providing advice regarding the ACA (Affordable Care Act)."

Snyder had pitched the idea of providing Great Lakes Peterbilt with insurance advice on the then-newly implemented Affordable Care Act and help the firm with its computer needs in return for the $13,000 check, the former owner of the trucking firm testified at trial.

The defense further accuses prosecutors of inviting jury speculation about bid-tampering and providing a continuous flow of evidence during trial.

"That is, from one week before trial through the end of trial, the prosecution produced another (by our count) 1,114 pages of material," Bennett argued. "This does not even count the thousands of pages produced within two weeks of the trial."

Snyder was indicted in late 2016 and was first found guilty in early 2019 of the bribery charge and federal tax violations. He is awaiting sentencing on the tax violations.

The bribery verdict was overturned later that year and a former judge in the case ordered a retrial that went on nearly two weeks last month.

Snyder opted not to testify on his own behalf during the trial and declined to answer questions as he left the federal court building.

04202021 - News Article - Former Portage Mayor James Snyder appeals 2nd bribery conviction; says most recent trial wasn’t fair

 

Former Portage Mayor James Snyder appeals 2nd bribery conviction; says most recent trial wasn’t fair

POST-TRIBUNE

APR 20, 2021 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/ct-ptb-portage-snyder-appeal-st-0421-20210420-lpkui4ewivgzxadfhyl2rcktza-story.html

In two court documents totaling more than 100 pages, former Portage Mayor James Snyder is requesting an acquittal and a third trial on a federal charge involving a $13,000 payment for allegedly steering a contract for garbage trucks.

Snyder has been convicted twice on the charge in U.S. District Court in Hammond. His February 2019 conviction came during a trial in which a jury also convicted him of defrauding the IRS, in a charge unrelated to city business, and found him not guilty on a bribery charge involving the city’s tow truck contract.

He sought and received a second trial on the charge involving the garbage trucks and was convicted again last month. Snyder is scheduled for sentencing July 1 before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly of the Northern District of Illinois, the third judge to oversee the case.

This time around, Snyder, 43, a Republican who served as Portage’s mayor from January 2012 through his first conviction, is asking for an acquittal because prosecutors “left an evidentiary void at the heart of the case” and is asking for another trial because “the retrial in this matter did not meet the fundamental requirement of fairness,” according to court documents filed Monday.

Jury deliberations took less than two hours in Snyder’s most recent trial, which was granted to provide Snyder’s defense team the opportunity to question bothers Robert and Steve Buha, former owners of Great Lakes Peterbilt.

The Buha brothers provided Snyder with a $13,000 check after receiving the city’s contract for garbage trucks, worth $1.25 million. The payment was reportedly for consulting services for information technology and navigating the Affordable Care Act for health insurance.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jill Koster argued during last month’s two-week trial that there was no proof that Snyder did the work he was contracted for or was qualified to do it, while defense attorney Jackie Bennett said the payment wasn’t a bribe because Snyder didn’t attempt to conceal it.

Robert Buha testified for the defense that Snyder initially asked for a loan because he was strapped for cash before they agreed on the consulting work. He told the court that a contract for the work wasn’t written up and Snyder never gave the documents or presentations of the work he did.

“There is insufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Snyder and the Buhas reached a corrupt deal to rig the bids in exchange for a payment,” court documents on the acquittal state. “Thus, there is insufficient evidence to sustain a finding that Mr. Snyder accepted a reward.”

The motion for a new trial notes that the first jury verdict on the bribery charge was overturned because of “irregularities” in the prosecution’s conduct.

“One might expect that a prosecution insisting on a second trial would be beyond reproach in its conduct and tactics at that trial; but that was not the case,” that document states. “Mr. Snyder acknowledges that no one is guaranteed a perfect trial, just a fair one.”

The documents for the acquittal and the new trial both note the testimony of Randall Evans, a former Indiana Department of Insurance employee, who defense attorneys said was used by prosecutors in the first trial to falsely claim that Snyder needed to register with that department “to provide advice, for money, about the Affordable Care Act.”

Defense attorneys requested that prosecutors not be permitted to introduce Evans’s testimony contradicting the law but the court denied the request. Instead, documents state, the court instructed the jury to disregard Evans’s testimony.

“The prosecution’s only purpose in calling Evans as a witness was to cast doubt on Mr. Snyder’s claim that the justification for the $13,000 check at the center of the case was that he had provided advice, for a fee, regarding the ACA to the Buhas and (Great Lakes Peterbilt),” documents said.

Additionally, Snyder’s attorneys said in court filings that “the prosecution’s constant flow of discovery materials — during the middle of the trial” warranted a new trial because the late filings hampered the defense’s ability to work on Snyder’s case.

From one week before trial through the end of trial prosecutors produced an additional 1,114 page of material, the filing states, which doesn’t include the thousands of pages of material produced within two weeks of the trial.

While the defense excluded much of the newly produced evidence, “it still hampered Mr. Snyder’s and his counsel’s ability to defend the case; every time the prosecution produced material, we reviewed it. And every hour of the many hours spent doing so was an hour not spent working on the case.”