Law.com: Williams & Connolly on Fast Track f... http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendl...

9/17/2008 01:20

Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document.

Copyright 2008 ALM Properties, Inc. All rights reserved.

Page printed from: http://www.law.com

Back to Article

Williams & Connolly on Fast Track for Sen.

Stevens Case
Joe Palazzolo and Mike Scarcella
09-17-2008

Lawyers at Williams & Connolly have long embraced grinding, incremental, motions-drenched criminal defenses for
their clients.

In the case of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, however, the bury-them-in-paper strategy has been turned on its ear.
Stevens is moving quickly to trial: Jury selection is scheduled for Sept. 22. He was indicted in late July on seven
felony counts for allegedly attempting to hide more than $250,000 in home renovations and gifts from people
associated with an Alaska oil services company.

Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, is up for re-election in November, and he's publicly pushed
for a fast trial before he faces voters. So, too, has Brendan Sullivan Jr., Williams & Connolly's senior trial lawyer.
He called the government's case uncomplicated and demanded a speedy resolution. "He'd like to clear his name
before the election," Sullivan said at Stevens' July arraignment.

That said, the firm has unloaded a dozen pre-trial motions on the government in the last few weeks. Williams &
Connolly, true to form, filed a dozen pre-trial motions. While most were standard criminal trial fare, at least one,
regarding constitutional protections in the speech or debate clause, could throw a wrench into the proceedings.

Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed six of the motions, though
he took the speech or debate clause motion under advisement. "The defendant asked for a speedy trial, and a
speedy trial is what he will get," Sullivan said.

STEVENS ON THE STAND

The Stevens case is a far cry from Brendan Sullivan's last trial. In 2006, a jury found his client, Walter Forbes, the
former chairman of Cendant Corp., guilty of conspiring to commit securities fraud and lying to the Securities and
Exchange Commission. The case, brought by federal prosecutors in New Jersey, was tried three times. Sullivan
and his team forced jury deadlocks in the first two trials. From indictment to conviction, the case ran five years.

Forbes was sentenced to 12 years in prison and made to pay $3.3 billion in restitution -- the culmination of the
largest accounting fraud of the 1990s. It was the first time since the 1970s that one of Sullivan's clients saw jail
time. (Sullivan declined to comment for this article.)

Prosecutors say Stevens intentionally concealed more than $250,000 in home renovations and gifts from friends
and employees of VECO, the former Alaska-based oil services company, by filing false or misleading Senate
financial disclosure forms between 2001 and 2006. Justice Department lawyers, led by Brenda Morris, principal
deputy chief of the Public Integrity Section, say Stevens used his official position to benefit VECO -- writing letters
on behalf of the company and, among other things, promising to expedite legislation to benefit the company.

The Stevens defense, as gleaned from pre-trial motions and hearings, is rooted in the argument that Stevens did
not knowingly and willfully file false financial disclosure statements. Stevens' lawyers -- who, in addition to
Sullivan, include partners Robert Cary and Alex Romain -- must show Stevens did not believe the items he
received were gifts that required reporting. Stevens can argue that any appearance of omission or concealment
was a mistake and not intentional.

Initially, Williams & Connolly sought to change the venue to Alaska, hoping for a more sympathetic jury and
arguing, among other things, that the witnesses live there. Sullivan brought a large map to court to make his
point about distance. Sullivan denied the request.

On Aug. 14, a week after receiving more than 100,000 discovery documents and 450 hours of wiretap audio,
Stevens' lawyers filed seven motions attacking the indictment -- arguing, among other things, that it violates
separation of powers; it is unconstitutionally vague; and it violates the speech or debate clause, which protects
lawmakers from prosecution rooted in legislative activity.

Prosecutors argue a lawmaker's phone calls and letters on behalf of a private person are not constitutionally
protected and should be allowed at trial to show Stevens' motive and intent.

Cary argued in court that such evidence is "highly, highly prejudicial and it's not what this case is about."

Four other motions were filed. Two sought to compel the government to turn over evidence. One was an attempt
to exclude certain evidence from the trial. And the fourth was a request for the medical records of a government
witness.

On Sept. 10 and Sept. 12, Sullivan tossed all of the motions challenging the indictment, except one -— the speech
or debate issue. The judge's speech or debate ruling -- no matter where he sides -- carries the potential for an
immediate appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which means certain delay.

To accommodate the Stevens trial, Sullivan moved around hearings and conferences. The judge postponed a
high-profile civil trial in which the American Society for the Prevention of Animal Cruelty alleges the mistreatment
of circus elephants.

Last week, the defense team began moving into space adjacent to the courtroom and the parties butted heads
over trial exhibits.

If the case does make it to trial, defense lawyers say that in order for Williams & Connolly to win, they'll likely
have to put Stevens on the stand. Witness and exhibit lists were scheduled to be filed by Sept. 13.

But testifying poses two risks, says Stephen Braga, a partner in Ropes & Gray's Washington office who represents
Michael Scanlon, a former business associate of Jack Abramoff. "The first is that the jury doesn't believe him and
he loses the case," Braga says. "The second is that the judge doesn't believe him and the judge can then increase
his sentence if he thinks that perjury was committed." And Braga notes ominously: "D.C. juries over the years
have not been kind to elected officials."

The false statement charge carries a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison, but guidelines call for a
six-month sentence. "Nobody is going to jail on a false statement case unless there is a lot more to it," says
Clifford Chance partner Wendy Wysong, a former Public Integrity Section prosecutor who was part of the team
that put Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., in prison for mail fraud in 1996.

And thus far, the Stevens case is about remaining in office, not jail time. Despite the charges, Stevens easily won
Law.com: Williams & Connolly on Fast Track f... http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendl... 9/17/2008 01:20

the Republican primary in Alaska in August. But the race remains tight, according to several recent polls. Stevens
has drawn near even with his Democratic opponent since Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was named as the running mate
of Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain.

Stevens' name will likely remain on the ballot whatever the outcome of the case, according to the director of the
Alaska Division of Elections. Ballots are finalized Sept. 17.

ROCKET DOCKET

Criminal defense lawyers rarely invoke the right to a speedy trial -- the law that states a criminal defendant has
the right to go to trial within 70 days of being indicted or arraigned. Defense lawyers say the benefit -- quick
justice and forcing the government's hand to expose a potentially weak case -- seldom outweighs the risk of rush:
one overlooked discovery document could shatter a defense.

"This is not magic. You can't walk into court and expect everything to fall into place," says Doug Jones, a partner
at Whatley, Drake & Kallas, in Birmingham, who represented former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman up until his
2006 corruption trial.

Siegelman, a Democrat who was running for another term as governor, requested a speedy trial on felony charges
that included bribery, extortion and racketeering. Jones, former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama,
left the trial team because of a conflict and because Siegelman insisted on a speedy trial before the Democratic
primary in June 2006.

"His lawyers kept pressing him to go slower, that we needed more time," Jones says. "When somebody's entire life
is on the line, lawyers tend to push back and seek as much time as they can get to prepare for trial. Don wanted
to go forward, and he's the client." Siegelman lost the primary race and, just three weeks later, was convicted.
Siegelman was sentenced to seven years in prison on charges that included bribery and obstruction. Siegelman is
free pending appeal.

White-collar lawyers say Stevens likely was the force behind the speedy trial. "A decision as important as this is
one for the client to make, not the lawyer, and I feel certain Senator Stevens made it in this case," says Baker
Botts partner William Jeffress Jr. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom's Robert Bennett agrees it was likely the
senator's call. "Lawyers get blamed all the time for decisions of the client," Bennett says.

The presumption is the government has the edge in speedy trials because prosecutors were on the front end of the
criminal investigation. Brendan Sullivan's peers point out that Stevens' defense team knew about the corruption
probe for more than a year before the senator was indicted, more than enough time for the legal team to get its
bearings.

"This investigation is not a surprise to the senator or his attorneys. It's been going on for a long time. They ought
to be ready," says McDermott Will & Emery's Abbe Lowell.

Mark Belnick, who was deputy chief counsel to the Senate Iran-Contra Committee while Sullivan represented
Oliver North, says the move for a speedy trial is not reckless or a bluff. "People who know Brendan," Belnick says,
"know that, if he says he's ready, he means it."