Jefferson trial delayed

• By GERARD SHIELDS
• Advocate Washington bureau
• Published: May 28, 2009 - Page: 12A

• Print
• Email
• Save
• Reprints
• Twitter
• Share

• Del.icio.us
• Digg
• Facebook
• Reddit
• 

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge on Wednesday delayed yet again the trial of former U.S. Rep. William Jefferson to give his attorneys a week to look for an expert witness.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III set the trial for June 9. Ellis had previously said there would be no continuation of the case that began four years ago.

“It’s not easy to eat these words,” said Ellis, of Virginia’s Eastern District Court.

The New Orleans Democrat has pleaded innocent to 16 public corruption charges including bribery, conspiracy, money laundering and racketeering. He is accused of soliciting money for himself and his family in return for pushing business projects in Africa.

The 18-year former congressman’s attorneys asked for the extra time to come up with a witness who could bolster Jefferson’s contention that he did not commit official acts such as casting a vote or introducing legislation on behalf of the companies.

Jefferson, an attorney, has said he acted as a private businessman in the matters. Robert Trout, Jefferson’s lead attorney, said he needs the expert witness to rebuff a similar expert for the prosecution that is expected to testify about the role of a congressman.

Trout had initially asked for three weeks to produce the witness. “This man has been vilified for four years,” Trout said of Jefferson.

The two sides jousted over how they could produce evidence over the official acts. Trout has asked Ellis to allow him to question witnesses over whether Jefferson pledged to secure federal funding, cast a vote or introduce legislation in return for payments.

Ellis deferred in ruling on the matter but noted that Jefferson is not charged for doing the activities.

“I don’t want this jury confused, and your line of questioning has that potential,” Ellis said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Lytle told Ellis that Trout’s questioning could open the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence that Jefferson had promised congressional funding — known as an earmark — in the past. Ellis was taken aback by the claim, he said.

“I’m surprised he wasn’t indicted for that,” Ellis said.

Ellis did partly rule in Jefferson’s favor by disallowing the prosecution to read the jury the congressional oath of office, which he said was not relevant. Trout objected to reading the oath and the House code of conduct because he said it would prejudice the jury to believe that violating them was a crime.