Opening arguments for the trial of former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson commenced June 16, 2009 at the Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia. The Congressman was charged with 16 criminal counts including conspiracy, bribery, money laundering, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. U.S. attorney Mark Lytle started by informing the jury how Congressman Jefferson used his government position for personal and family benefits. Lytle projected an electronic presentation around the courtroom to illustrate how Jefferson accepted and received bribes from certain businessmen. After the FBI organized wiretaps and video recordings, Jefferson ultimately ended up in a whirlwind of FBI search warrants, federal charges, and suspicions surrounding the infamous $90,000 freezer cash.

Honing in on Jefferson’s unethical behavior, the Prosecution alleged that the Congressman used his official influence to set up international shell companies and peddle money. Many companies were discussed including Andrea Jefferson’s ANJ, but of particular interest was a company known as iGate. Jefferson arranged financing for federally convicted Vernon Jackson’s enterprise in return for shares, family involvement, and something akin to a bribe or (a finder’s fee according to the Defense). The motive for accepting this money included the $62,000 debt that Congressman Jefferson and his wife acquired prior to conspiracy acquisitions; along with account overdrawing on 70 separate occasions, $40,000 late fees, and numerous bounced checks. After describing Jefferson as “thoroughly corrupt,” US Attorney Mark Lytle warned the jury that the FBI recordings and videos would expose the Congressman as nodding instead of saying yes, and that bribe acceptance was not established by handshake, but by code. Buttressing the allegations of questionable behavior, Jefferson surrounded himself during these dealings with shady characters including Mose Jefferson, Brett Pfeffer, Jack White, and Vernon Jackson who is sentenced in a federal prison for bribing a Congressman- the very same William Jefferson.

The Defense did little to counter the allegations against William Jefferson as being unethical. In fact, Jefferson’s defense attorney, Robert Trout, conceded that Jefferson’s family members stood to gain from business in West Africa, but he argued that unethical behavior in itself is not criminal. In what the Prosecution counted as evidence of recorded bribery combined with the intention to avoid a paper trail, the Defense explained away as mere business dealings. Trout insisted that the jury understand that there must be an official act committed in return for something of value for transactions to be considered bribery and he proffered that there was no understanding that Congressman Jefferson would perform any official act when the money was offered to him. But the money in Jefferson’s freezer, as Trout said, was the elephant in the room. As the Defense craftily tried to separate the notion of the money from any criminal activities, the question lingered as to whether “fortuitous circumstances” could simply explain away the money, the family benefitting from West African business deals, and the convictions of bribery against those with whom Jefferson dealt. The defense maneuvered around the allegations and offered the fantastical account of an FBI conspiracy that aimed to nab a Congressman subtly expressing “African American presence.” The business associates, including Jackson, surrendered to FBI intimidation and pleaded guilty in what the defense called part of a performance where the FBI wrote the script, directed the action, and chose the roles for the stars. In this conspiracy, not only did Jefferson not engage in criminal acts, but the key FBI snitch was “emotionally fragile” and “unpredictable.” While the FBI conspiracy leaned towards fiction, it was peculiar that the Prosecution chose not call the snitch as a witness and instead will rely on her recordings.

What appeared to be an open and shut case revolving around freezer money instead raised greater questions about a Congressman’s transactions. The prosecution will succeed if they can tie the freezer money to bribery. As noted during opening statements, legally a bribe does not need money to change hands, but involves the intention of bribery. The Defense will keep pressing the notion of burden of proof over the next few weeks. Meanwhile, the jury must determine whether the recordings provide sufficient evidence of criminal behavior, whether the Congressman was simply using his clout to influence business decisions or whether he was soliciting and/ or accepting bribes. As the first witness, Vernon Jackson, took the stand in his federal attire, the image provoked the notion of whether justice will be served if the man allegedly receiving bribes goes home free while the man accused of the bribing is now serving time.  

- Jenny Small and Megan Smith