Kott corruption convictions thrown out by 9th Circuit

Related

• Kohring convictions tossed by Ninth Circuit
• Weyhrauch given suspended sentence
• Bill Allen escapes prosecution on sex charges
• Alaska's political corruption scandal reaped prison, vindication and uncertainty for the accused

Score a victory for Pete Kott. The former speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives, once convicted and jailed on corruption charges, has won the right to a new trial. Kott is among the Alaska lawmakers caught up in a wide-sweeping political corruption probe centered on the activities of businessman Bill Allen and Allen's efforts to help determine new tax rates the Legislature was establishing for the oil industry.

"When the phone rang I was certainly apprehensive," Kott said of the early morning call he received from his attorney who was about the share the good news. "I was pleasantly elated that it worked out in my favor. At least at this point."

Kott's reserve in celebrating an all out win comes from a huge unknown still hanging over his head -- whether the government will in fact put him through a second trial. If he does find himself in court a second time, will he be able to better defend himself, armed with the information prosecutors were forced to hand over in the post-trial battles? "Oh absolutely," Kott said. "I think that the government's case was extremely weak to begin with and I think that has now been exposed."

In the midst of serving out his federal sentence on corruption charges, Kott was released in June 2009 at the request of the U.S. Justice Department. The move came after a federal judge threw out the case against former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens citing bad trial conduct from government attorneys who repeatedly withheld information about Allen and other evidence that could have helped Stevens mount a stronger defense.

Lawyers for Kott and other defendants whose cases hinged on testimony from Allen and other witnesses then argued that their clients had also not received fair treatment.

"We are pleased that the 9th Circuit recognized all of the errors in the government's case," said Kott attorney Sheryl Gordon McCloud, reached at her office in Seattle Thursday. "We're sorry that it took this long to try to correct the errors, but we are glad that it finally did happen."

Will feds retry former Alaska lawmakers?

Three "Polar Pen" corruption cases in which the government won convictions later imploded as a result of the government's own trial mistakes. Ted Stevens, Vic Kohring and Kott eventually had their convictions tossed because prosecutors withheld evidence helpful to the defense.

With Kohring and Kott it is not clear whether the government will attempt to salvage its battered track record by seeking new convictions against the former Alaska lawmakers. Alaska U.S. Attorney Karen Loeffler on Thursday would only say that retrials are "under consideration."

But if the cases do go to trial again, McCloud thinks problems with witnesses will continue to plague the government's efforts.

"They threw out all of the convictions of Pete Kott not on a technicality, but because the government's evidence was not trustworthy. If they retry him again, the government's evidence still won't be trustworthy," she said. 

A three judge panel for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case last October. On Thursday, judges Betty Binns Fletcher, A. Wallace Tashima and Sidney R. Thomas handed down their ruling. "We vacate Kott's conviction and remand to the district court for a new trial," wrote the circuit judges in their decision. "There is no doubt … that the prosecution suppressed evidence favorable to the defense."

The higher court disagreed with the district court in Anchorage about whether the withheld evidence –- which included information about investigations into Allen's sexual engagements with young women and his efforts to hide those associations, and information revealing inconsistent statements about the payments Kott received and why he received them -– would have changed the outcome of the trial.

U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick ruled the newly discovered information would not have prejudiced the outcome. But the 9th Circuit judges came to a different conclusion.