Mark Ridley-Thomas has never lost an election in more than 30 years, relying on a well-organized network of supporters to win.
The former Los Angeles City Councilman and county supervisor is now involved in a different kind of race with far higher stakes. It’s a fight to clear his name and escape from prison.
The 70-year-old was convicted last year on seven federal corruption charges stemming from a scheme to secure benefits for his son from the University of Southern California’s social services director, who solicited political support for Los Angeles County projects. received. The jury acquitted him of 12 other charges.
U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fisher sentenced Ridley-Thomas to 42 months in prison in August 2023. The veteran lawmaker is out on bail as he seeks to overturn the jury verdict in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Ridley Thomas’ quest to exonerate him has reached a critical moment with oral arguments scheduled for Thursday before a three-judge panel at the Court of Appeals in Pasadena.
Ridley Thomas and his supporters have worked to defend him with the energy and strategy of a political campaign.
He continues to make public appearances, posing for photos with supporters and allies, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. Advocates will receive mass email invitations to “RSVP” to public hearings, allowing them to stay abreast of legal developments. “Our presence is our voice,” reads a note calling on readers to pack into the courtroom for Ridley Thomas’ sentencing.
Ridley-Thomas is also appealing to supporters for financial assistance, writing in an April email that “we must prepare to turn this injustice around.” He asked for a $250 donation “or any amount you feel comfortable contributing.”
More than $100,000 flowed into his legal defense fund in the first half of 2024, according to public filings.
His donors include familiar names in Los Angeles civic life, including lobbyist Ernie Berghoff, public relations consultant Carman Maddox, radio host Tavis Smiley, and prominent attorney Patricia Smiley. Glazer is donating $1,000 each. Former state Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez donated $2,500, according to the filing. A number of Ridley-Thomas’ aides also contributed, including Peter Hong, a former Times reporter and current Capital & Main editor-in-chief, who gave $200. Polling firm Ebitals donated $5,000, according to the filing.
“I contributed to the defense fund only as an individual who once worked for Mr. Ridley Thomas,” Hong said. “In our legal system, we have the right to a defense. And in our system, we are expected to pay for that defense. It can be very expensive. .”
Advocates have been holding prayer meetings, and in January, his longtime aide Vincent Harris launched a “teach-in,” in which he and several lawyers present their views on the prosecution’s case. Defects were thoroughly verified.
At the teach-in, attorney and commentator Areva Martin introduced the team of lawyers handling Ridley-Thomas’ appeal, including UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and former Ninth Circuit Paul Watford, a former judge who is now in private practice. Ridley Thomas’ appeal case will be Watford’s first appearance as a litigant in front of his former colleagues since leaving the bench in 2023.
“Don’t think he hasn’t been asked to take on appeals by many criminal defendants,” Martin said at the teach-in. “The fact that he decided to take on this case speaks volumes about what he was thinking about how this case was resolved at the trial level.”
“This case is unlike any other,” said Alyssa Bell, a former public defender who is leading the appeals team. “Our job is to take back the story, retell it from Dr. Ridley-Thomas’s perspective, and explain how the government adopted and distorted laws that should never have applied to these facts. We want the world to see that we’re here.” He devised the first prosecution theory of its kind. ”
Over the past year, the prosecution and defense have traded arguments in court filings to be presented to a three-judge panel on Thursday. The defense argued that prosecutors relied on the idea that what Ridley-Thomas gained from his deal with the dean of the University of Southern California was to protect his “public image” and “family brand.” It claimed to have developed a “novel” theory of honest services fraud. Dean Marilyn Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of bribery and was sentenced to 18 months of home confinement.
Honest services fraud does not extend to quid pro quo transactions, where each “penny” is a perceived reputational benefit, attorneys argued in their filing. They floated the idea that such prosecutions, if allowed, would criminalize everyday transactions between elected officials and voters.
But prosecutors said they identified to jurors specific items of value in the bribery scheme that Ridley-Thomas allegedly tried to secure from the University of Southern California: admission for his son Sebastian, and Sebastian’s graduate studies. , a teaching position for Sebastian, and a $100,000 donation from the university. USC transferred it to a nonprofit organization run by Sebastian, prosecutors wrote.
Prosecutors wrote that “honorary interests were only one motive for the defendant to seek and demand benefits for his son,” calling it “classic” corruption.
Both prosecutors and defense attorneys filed briefs with the Ninth Circuit in June, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued the potentially confusing decision. The conservative majority voted 6-3 to overturn the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who took $13,000 from a truck dealership that received $1.1 million in city contracts.
In a ruling handed down by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, the court ruled that officials could be charged with bribery if there was no evidence of illegal transactions, but not with accepting gratuities for past favors. It was determined that it would not be possible.
Ridley Thomas’ lawyers had already accused prosecutors of confusing bribery with gratuities. The Supreme Court’s decision “makes clear” that the government’s theory in the case is “legally invalid on all counts,” they argued.
Prosecutors countered in a September filing that evidence showed an apparent quid pro quo agreement between Ridley Thomas and the dean of the University of Southern California, including confidential documents commemorating the agreement the dean made. They argued that their case was consistent with the new Supreme Court ruling. It was handed over to the politician’s office in downtown Los Angeles.
Additionally, prosecutors accused Ridley-Thomas and his defense attorneys of cherry-picking evidence to suit their preferred viewpoint, even if it was inaccurate.
“As he did in his opening brief and answer brief, the defendant advances a factual story that is separate from the trial record,” prosecutors wrote.
Source link
