Pennsylvania

Chaka Fattah, 3 Co-Defendants Want Acquittals or New Trial

Chaka Fattah, former U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania's second district, and 3 co-defendants asked Friday for acquittals or new trials in their federal corruption case, decided in June.

Senior Judge, Harvey Bartle III, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, heard arguments on the motions for Fattah, Herbert Vederman, Robert Brand and Karen Nicholas.

During the trial, prosecutors said Vederman, a lobbyist and friend of Fattah's, showered the former congressman with gifts so vFattah would recommend Vederman for a U.S. Ambassador post. Fattah wrote letters of recommendation and even hand-delivered a letter to the White House advocating for Vederman.

Vederman's attorneys argued Friday against 7 of his 8 bribery convictions based on rules established in the Supreme Court's McDonnell v. U.S. case.

They said Fattah's support for Vederman was routine and couldn't be considered bribery because his role was that of supporter, not adviser; that Fattah didn't intend or expect his support for Vederman to be taken by anyone as advice.

Prosecutors told the judge Fattah's actions -- especially hand-delivering the letter to the White House -- were not routine. They also referred to trial testimony by U.S. Senator Bob Casey and Ed Rendell that it was not routine to send letters or make phone calls about an ambassador role.

Fattah's attorneys also argued the jury was not properly instructed on charges involving Tom Lindenfeld's phony nonprofit, Blue Guardians.

The government claimed Fattah, who was on the appropriations committee, told Lindenfeld he'd earmark $15 million dollars to Blue Guardians in exchange for Lindenfeld forgiving Fattah's campaign debt.

Fattah's attorneys said he could not promise an action if he couldn't make it happen, and he never had the ability to actually give or get that $15 million to Blue Guardians.

Prosecutors responded by quoting the McDonnellm case, stating bribery does not require a person to actually carry out an action, an individual just has to promise the action, they do not have to be explicit or state how they intend to make it happen. The Government believes Lindenfeld's testimony about the illegal $1 million campaign loan and Lindenfeld's phony non-profit is sufficient evidence on this count.

Robert Brand and Karen Nicholas also had attorney's present to argue they should be acquitted of their conspiracy charges because their involvement was outside the statute of limitations. Acquittal of these counts would call into question the entirety of the RICO conspiracy.

The government disagreed, arguing if some of the RICO conspiracy charges are found valid it is basis that the conspiracy exists even if actions of certain parties fall outside the statute of limitations and that every member took part in the concealment of illegal actions.

They argued there is sufficient evidence to link each individual to at least two counts of racketeering and that not every conspirator needs to be knowledgeable of the actions of every co-conspirator.

Judge Bartle did not render a decision Friday.

Contact Us