Traficant requests new trial

by Paul Singer
The Associated Press

CLEVELAND ­ U.S. Rep. James A. Traficant Jr. is seeking to overturn his conviction on corruption and bribery charges, saying a judge violated his rights by restricting testimony of his witnesses.

Traficant was convicted April 11 of taking bribes and kickbacks from businessmen and his own staff after a raucous trial in which the congressman insisted on serving as his own lawyer. Sentencing is scheduled for June 27.

The charges against Traficant carry a possible maximum sentence of 63 years and nearly $2 million in fines. Under federal sentencing guidelines, Traficant is likely to get less jail time, probably less than 20 years, according to legal observers.

In a motion filed in U.S. District Court late Monday, Traficant said the verdict should be overturned and a new trial convened because of errors made by U.S. District Judge Lesley Wells.

Bill Edwards, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, said yesterday his office will file a written response to Traficant's motion and won't comment until then.

Traficant argued ­ as he repeatedly did during his trial ­ that Wells improperly restricted the testimony of his witnesses.

Wells prevented several of Traficant's witnesses from testifying before the jury because they were providing secondhand accounts of events or were reporting statements made to them by other people.

Such hearsay testimony is barred unless it meets one of the specific exceptions set out in the rules of evidence. On several occasions, prosecutors were able to introduce hearsay evidence after showing they had met the exceptions in the hearsay rule.

Traficant was unable to get such evidence before the jury and repeatedly lashed out at the judge for what he called her favoritism toward the government.

The congressman is resurrecting issues that were the basis of his motion to dismiss the charges before the case went to the jury, according to Youngstown lawyer Marc Dann.

"The burdens for an appeal are lower," Dann said. "It essentially gives him another bite at the apple."

Still, Dann said he would be surprised if Traficant's motion prevailed.

Traficant argues in his motion ­ as he did repeatedly at trial ­ that Wells violated his rights when she asked him in front of the jury whether he would take the stand in his own defense, which he didn't.