Youngstown Daily Legal News

Appeals panel: Evidence sufficient for conviction of former Cuyahoga Co. judge

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: February 26, 2013

A federal appellate panel recently ruled that there was sufficient evidence to convict a former Ohio judge on multiple counts of political corruption for accepting bribes.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Steven Terry’s claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of honest services fraud violations after it found he was recorded agreeing to rule on cases to benefit a campaign donor and then proceeded to execute the rulings without reviewing the case files.

“‘If you can’t eat lobbyists’ food, drink their booze,...take their money and then vote against them, you’ve got no business being in politics,’ said Jesse Unruh, a one-time Speaker of the California General Assembly, in the 1960s. That is one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it comes courtesy of the federal anti-corruption statutes, one of which prohibits an official from accepting things of value ‘in return for’ official acts,” 6th Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the court.

Case summary states that then-Gov. Ted Strickland appointed Terry to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in April 2007.

At the time, the Cuyahoga County Auditor Frank Russo had a presence in Cleveland politics and had recommended Terry for appointment and lobbied members of a local judicial nominating committee to support him.

When Terry decided to seek reelection the following November he asked Russo to help.

Terry was unaware that the FBI was investigating Russo for corruption and had tapped his phones while he helped Terry seek reelection.

In July 2008, Russo had a recorded phone conversation with a local attorney about two foreclosure cases and said he would make sure Terry did what he was “supposed to do” in regard to ruling on the cases, according to case summary.

Two days after Russo’s conversation with the attorney, he spoke to Terry about attending Terry’s fundraisers and told Terry to deny motions for summary judgment in the foreclosure cases. Terry ultimately denied the motions without reviewing the case files or reading the motions, case summary details.

Russo eventually pleaded guilty to 21 political corruption counts and testified that in exchange for his support, he expected Terry “to answer the phone any time I called. And any time I called with a recommendation, or a problem, or a case, I would expect Steve to give it special attention (and) follow through for me.”

Russo was sentenced to 262 months in prison.

After a five-day trial, the U.S. District Court - Northern District of Ohio found Terry guilty of three counts of political corruption and sentenced him to 63 months in prison on each count, with the sentences running concurrently.

On appeal to the 6th Circuit, Terry argued the district court failed to identify a crime and should have dismissed the indictment, the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding the requirements for showing he accepted a bribe, and that there was insufficient evidence to show he accepted a bribe.

The appellate panel held that an indictment must include a statement of facts constituting the alleged offense and a citation of the violated statute.

“Terry’s indictment did just that. It outlined the contours of the relationship between Terry and Russo, detailed how Russo instructed Terry to deny the bank’s motions for summary judgment, listed the benefits Terry received from Russo and mentioned each statute Terry allegedly violated,” Sutton stated.

Finding that Terry’s crime was properly identified and that the district court properly denied dismissing the indictment, the panel rejected his first assignment of error.

The panel determined that an agreement is the main component of a bribe. It found that the district court told the jury it must find that Terry agreed to take something of value from Russo in exchange for an official action and that the agreement could be based on Terry’s words, actions or surrounding circumstances shown by the evidence.

“The jury instructions in this case accurately conveyed that an agreement is the key component of a bribe,” Sutton wrote.

The panel found that Russo’s donations of money, campaign material and labor, could be viewed as things of value or benefits.

It further found that a jury would not have to interpret those items as a bribe, instead they could be seen as campaign contributions if they were not part of an agreement to benefit the patron.

However, the panel held it was in the jury’s right to find it was a bribe because of Terry’s actions and the phone call recording Terry agreeing to rule on cases and then proceeding to do so, in a way that benefited Russo and at Russo’s request.

“But when a public official acts as a donor’s marionette — by deciding a case to a donor’s benefit immediately after the donor asks him to and without reading anything about the case — a jury can reject legitimate explanations for a contribution and infer that it flowed from a bribery agreement,” Sutton stated.

Rejecting Terry’s three assignments of error, the appellate panel affirmed the district court’s ruling.

Fellow 6th Circuit judges Helene White and Richard Allen Griffin joined Sutton to form the majority.

Attempts to contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Cleveland and Terry’s attorney, Sylvester Summers of Cleveland, were unsuccessful prior to press deadline.

The case is cited USA v. Terry, case No. 11-4130.

[Back]