Grand theft charges dropped against suspended City of Miami Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones.

.

Incredible.  There's plenty of people writing about the charges of Grand Theft against former city of Miami commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones getting dropped yesterday, so no need to rehash the story here.  The crux of the case against Spence-Jones was the allegation that she forged a letter on former commissioner Barbara Carey-Shuler's letterhead authorizing the release of $50,000 to companies controlled by Spence-Jones but during a deposition, Spence-Jones defense attorneys showed a Carey-Shuler a draft copy of the letter with her handwriting on it after which Carey-Shuler changed her story and said that indeed she did sign the letter releasing the funds to Spence-Jones.  With that, the state should have thrown out the case against Spence-Jones as the one and only witness for the prosecution made an admission that destroyed the states case, even worse, the letter with Carey-Shuler's handwriting on it came from the states own case file.  Could that state have been hiding the letter from Spence-Jones then somehow forgot to remove it from the discovery file handed over to the defense?  Certainly a posibility.  Or could the state have had the letter all along and simply over looked it?  Unlikely in my opinion.  

Regardless, as we all know, the state forged ahead with the case after this fatal blow was struck to their case and we were even lead to believe that despite the lack of evidence against Spence-Jones that the state was going to move forward and take the case to trial.  Now that the charges have been dropped, the public corruption prosecutor on the case, Richard Scruggs, addresses the matter of the handwritten Carey-Shuler letter that exonerated Spence-Jones in the cases close out memo by suggesting that the defense team somehow slipped the letter into the boxes of evidence that they were allowed to examine after Spence-Jones was arrested.  Take a look at this excerpt from the close out memo...

Really?  Is that the best veteran prosecutor Richard Scruggs could do?    Spence-Jones and her attorney played some elaborate game to get the states records custodian out of the room so that they could slip this letter in?  He's laying the blame for this bungled case at the feet of the defense somehow magically getting this letter into his case file?  That's an unbelievable statement and hopefully grounds for a serious bar complaint against the prosecutor.  You can read the states close out memo in it's entirety here...

Michelle Spence-jones Close Out Memo

As if all of this wasn't bad enough, what makes all this even more unbearable are the comments from the Reverend Richard Dunn who was appointed to take over Spence-Jones' commission seat while she was suspended.  During several interviews yesterday, Mr. Dunn suggested that although he was appointed then later elected to Spence-Jones' vacant commission seat he would begrudgingly step aside and let her have her job back.  There's a minor detail though, tacky zoot suit wearing Reverend Dunn believes that since he was elected (after promising the city of Miami that he wouldn't run for election) that he believed that he was entitled to his $60k per year salary and benefits till 2013!  THE FUCK YOU SAY!?

Honestly, why not?  Considering all the other former City of Miami employees that have recently departed with golden parachutes, why shouldn't he get his?  Typical Miami bullshit, this is precisely why we're the laughing stock of the nation, if not the world.

No deal for Michelle Spence-Jones...

.

At least not today. If you believe the rumors circulating regarding her case, today was the day the state was to drop the charges against former city of Miami commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones, needless to say, it didn't happen. Her attorney, Peter Raben, was overheard telling the judge at sidebar that he was "no where near ready to go to trial". The judge then proceeded to give another status date for August 28, 2011. 

Based on what we saw today, there doesn't seem to be any "deal" on the horizon and the case seems to be headed for trial. More later.

The jury instructions for the Michelle Spence-Jones bribery trial and a chilling comment from one of our readers.

.

We left off yesterday learning that the jury in the suspended City of Miami commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones bribery trial had come back with a not guilty verdict after only 90 minutes of deliberations. State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle issued this statement regarding the verdict through her spokesman Ed Griffith...

In this case, the jury had no choice but to acquit the defendant because the judge instructed the jury that, in effect, soliciting or accepting a bribe through a charity is legal, even if done with corrupt intent. We disagree with the judge’s interpretation of the bribery law. Bribery has become very sophisticated in our community. We believe that bribery done to influence a public official, even if done through a charity, is illegal. We will continue to investigate, prosecute, and enforce our bribery law.

So according to the state attorney it was the judges jury instructions that tainted their case against Spence-Jones?  Thanks to one of our readers, we were able to obtain the jury instructions, take a look...

Michelle Spence-Jones Bribery Trial Jury Instructions

Let's break it down, in order to prove her guilt, the state was required to prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt...

1. MICHELLE SPENCE JONES was a CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSIONER.

Ok, that's obvious.  Next...

2. MICHELLE SPENCE JONES requested, solicited, accepted, or agreed to accept from CODINA GROUP INCORPORATED the thing described in the charge in this case as $25,000.00.

No argument there.  Next...

3. The $25,000.00 was something of value, benefit, or advantage to MICHELLE SPENCE JONES not authorized by law.

This is where the state loses me.  According to everything we've seen, the money went to the Dade County Foundation which then administered the money as they saw fit, in this case the foundation gave the money to the Friends of the MLK Trust.  As far as I can tell, the state was not able to prove the Spence-Jones used this Friends of the MLK Trust as a "personal piggy bank" therefore I can't imagine that anyone on the jury could have thought that the state proved this element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  Last but not least...

4. The request, solicitation, acceptance, agreement to accept was made with intent of corruptly being influenced in the performance of some act or omission that MICHELLE SPENCE JONES represented as being within her official discretion.

I'll leave it the attorrney that represented Spence-Jones, Peter Raben, to take care of this part...

"This case is all about a vote.  It's the first bribery case I can ever imagine where there is no money going to the elected official and there's no vote.  Think about that."

Brilliant.  Now let's move on to the specific jury instruction that the state seems to have issue with...

The Court now further instructs you that under applicable law, a benefit, advantage or thing of value solicited by a public official on behalf of a non-profit organization, for use solely by that organization, where neither the official nor her family or staff receive any compensation as a result of that solicitation, is authorized by law. Compensation is defined as any money, gift, favor, political contribution, or any thing of value or other financial benefit.

Does this part really matter?  The state hasn't been able to prove that Spence-Jones used the trust fund as her "personal piggy bank" and there was no vote in exchange for the donation so who really cares about this specific instruction that Judge Rosa Rodriguez included?  On the other hand, if these kind of donations were illegal, then all of the sitting City of Miami commissioners would be guilty!  Our friends over at Investigation Miami did a great job laying out one such case.  


I don't see the problem with the jury instructions, I think based on the facts that the state laid out, the defense won fair and square.  Although this is a tough loss for the state attorneys office, I hope that they'll look past this and see the real problem which in my opinion is the way the prosecutor elicited the false testimony from their star witness against Spence-Jones, Armando Codina.  I'm really troubled by the tactics that are being used by prosecutors to coerce witnesses into saying what they need them to say in order to achieve the most injurious testimony possible against their targets.  As our readers know, this isn't the first time we've seen prosecutors deceive and trick witnesses into getting them to say what they need them to say in order to achieve an arrest.

What really makes me wonder about this whole case is the timing, one of our readers laid it all out in our comments section from yesterdays post...

The story behind the story is bigger than the story. The state put forth a case that never satisfied the prima facie elements of a violation of any law. Everyone had to know that going in. But they did it anyway. The reason? Spence Jones sued the governor one year ago and was on the verge of winning that case and being placed back in office. Two days before an expected ruling in her favor, the SAO indicts her for bribery thus making the civil case moot. It did not matter that the bribery case was fabricated. The mere fact of the indictment ruined her. The SAO had to know this. They used the grand jury to manipulate the electoral process and prevent a duly elected official form taking office because they have a vendetta against her. Shame on them.

If there's a modicum of truth to this theory then it scares the shit out of me as it shatters my confidence in the leadership of the state attorneys office.  Once again I'm reminded of that great quote from Supreme Court Justice Brennan...

"Between the private life of the citizen and the public glare of criminal accusation stands the prosecutor. That state official has the power to employ the full machinery of the state in scrutinizing any given individual. Even if a defendant is ultimately acquitted, forced immersion in criminal investigation and adjudication is a wrenching disruption of everyday life. For this reason, we must have assurance that those who would wield this power will be guided solely by their sense of public responsibility for the attainment of justice."

I would really hate to think that the prosecution of Spence-Jones was nothing more than a vendetta, I simply have too much faith in Ms. Rundle and her office to believe that.  The facts don't look good, I guess only time will tell...

Michelle Spence-Jones NOT GUILTY!!

.

Jury just came in with a not guilty verdict in the bribery trial of suspended city of Miami commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones!


Congratulations are in order for Mrs Spence-Jones and her defense attorney Peter Raben. Mr. Raben's greatest line from the trial...

"...the state gave them three weeks of smoke instead of a smoking gun."

WELL DONE!!!

Taking another look at Armando Codina's second deposition for the Michelle Spence-Jones bribery case.

We discussed certain elements of Mr. Codina's deposition last Friday as outlined by our friend Francisco Alvarado in his Miami New Times article.  Specifically the New Times story discussed Mr Codina's displeasure with the prosecutor who took a statement from him regarding his donation to Dade Community Foundation that was to be used for a charity event to honor Barbara Carey-Schuler after telling Mr. Codina that the event never happened and that Spence-Jones pocketed the money for her own use.  
 
The problem is that the event did happen and once Mr. Codina found out, he said the prosecutor had mislead him...

"You told me there had not been an event," Codina told Scruggs. "You told me that the charity was a fake and that she had used the money as her own piggybank...that no event had taken place and that she had pocketed the money." 

The prosecutor went ahead and based his case against Spence-Jones on this flawed testimony from Mr. Codina, while several other people have written about the first part of the deposition where Mr. Codina confronts the prosecutor for misleading him, no one has mentioned anything about Mr. Codina's cross examination by Spence-Jones defense attorney Peter Raben, take a look for yourselves...

Q. My client has been charged with grand theft in that acquiring $12,500 contribution from you in March has been charged under the Florida statute saying it was a theft.  As you sit here today, do you believe that you were the victim of a theft by my client?


A. No.


Q. Okay, do you believe that you donated money or you made this contribution as a result of fraud, a willful misrepresentation or false premise by my client?


A. I made the contribution because of what was on that e-mail, and as I know it today, my money was deposited at the Dade Community Foundation, so I would have to say no.  

Can it get any clearer than that?

THE WITNESS:  I said, as I know today, the money was deposited in the Dade Community Foundation, so I would have to say no, I don't think that I was defrauded.

Just in case it wasn't clear enough!

Q. When you say you think you were defrauded at one time, is that based upon the statements that were made to you by Mr. Scruggs when you met with him?

A. Yes, sir.

Yikes!

Q.  Okay, and in terms of what the money was going to be for, would you agree that it was an unrestricted gift to the charity to be administered at the discretion of  the Dade Community Foundation?

A.  Yes.  If  Dade Community Foundation deemed it to be a legitimate charity, I'm perfectly okay with that.  I can't replace my judgment for theirs.

Q.  You trusted their judgment? 

A.  Yes, I trust them.  I trust the Dade Community Foundation to a large degree.

Based on the testimony we just read, where does that leave the states case against Spence-Jones?  If indeed the testimony Mr. Codina originally gave was obtained by the prosecutor lying and misrepresenting the facts that lead up to her arrest then it seems to me there's nothing left.  

Let's see what the jury thinks...