- The Washington Times - Tuesday, April 7, 2009

If, as expected Tuesday, a federal judge agrees to dismiss corruption charges against former Sen. Ted Stevens, it will wipe away the Alaska Republican's conviction and complete an embarrassing unraveling of the Justice Department's case.

But the dismissal will not declare Stevens innocent. Nor will it rewrite the facts of a case in which Stevens took thousands of dollars in favors and freebies from wealthy friends.

“He still had gifts he received,” juror Colleen Walsh said Monday.

Those that came to mind, she said, were the $2,700 massage chair, a custom stained-glass window worth $3,200, and a $29,000 fish sculpture. None of those had anything to do with the home renovations or the disputed testimony.

“All those he still did not claim” on Senate forms, said Miss Walsh.

She said the new evidence might have saved Stevens on a few counts, but not others.

Stevens, who was the Senate's longest-serving Republican, was convicted in October of seven counts of concealing home renovations and other gifts from Senate financial documents.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. dismissed the case after discovering that a key witness had made inconsistent statements and that the value of Stevens' renovations might have been far less than prosecutors contended in court. It was the final straw for a prosecution team that repeatedly mishandled witnesses and evidence.

Stevens and his supporters responded to the Justice Department's admission as if it pronounced his innocence.

“I always knew that there would be a day when the cloud that surrounded me would be removed,” Stevens said. “That day has finally come.”

Friends talked about Stevens, 85, re-emerging in public life as an elder statesman. Alaska Republicans, including Gov. Sarah Palin, called for his Democratic successor, Sen. Mark Begich, to resign to give Stevens an election do-over.

“His name is cleared,” defense attorney Brendan Sullivan declared. “He is innocent of the charges as if they had never been brought.”

There was no mention of the fact that jurors unanimously rejected Stevens' defense.

At trial, he said he didn't disclose the items he received because they were not gifts. The massage chair, for instance, remained in his house for seven years, but Stevens said it was a loan. He said he assumed the stained-glass window was purchased, since his wife takes care of such things. The fish statute was a donation to his foundation, he said, and remained on his front porch only because that's where the donors shipped it.

Jurors convicted him on all of that, and none of it would have been changed by the newly discovered evidence.

The new evidence undercut the testimony of contractor Bill Allen, the government's star witness. Allen testified that his employees performed hundreds of thousands of dollars in work on Stevens' house. Allen also recalled a conversation in which a mutual friend said Stevens didn't intend to pay for the work and wanted a bill only to keep up appearances.

Prosecutors now acknowledge that Allen had no recollection of such a conversation when interviewed a few months before trial. The value of the renovations, Allen told investigators, might have been more like $80,000.

Michael Sklaire, a former corruption prosecutor, said the decision to dismiss the case was more about punishing the prosecutors for withholding evidence than about exonerating Stevens. When the case against a drug dealer collapses, Mr. Sklaire said, the charges disappear but the defendant can't really say he's innocent because he still got arrested with drugs.

Mr. Stevens accepted items and did not disclose them. Jurors said that was criminal. What makes the Stevens case unique, Mr. Sklaire said, is that Mr. Allen's testimony was essential to many but not all of the charges in the case. Would prosecutors have gone to trial without Mr. Allen's now-discredited testimony?

“It was right on the edge of being an ethics matter and a criminal case,” Mr. Sklaire said.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide