Hinds DA can try to persuade jury he was entrapped by bribery sting, federal judge rules
By Molly Minta | Originally published by Mississippi Today
Hinds County District Attorney Jody Owens did not convince a federal judge that FBI agents posing as out-of-state developers entrapped him as part of a sting operation into public corruption in Mississippi’s capital city.
But Owens can still try to persuade a jury that was the case, the same judge ruled.
U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan denied Owens’ motion to dismiss bribery charges because of entrapment. The judge also blocked the prosecution’s motion to prevent Owens from mounting such a defense – one of many legal decisions the judge made in a raft of orders this week setting the stage for the July 13 trial involving the district attorney and two former Jackson elected officials.
“Whether Owens can meet his burden based on the trial evidence remains to be seen,” Jordan wrote. “But the Court will not prevent him from attempting to prove his theory of the case.”
The judge’s orders are the first time many details are coming to light about the defenses for Owens and his alleged co-conspirators, former Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba and former Jackson City Councilmember Aaron Banks.
Documents are unsealed
Dozens of filings in the case have been sealed from public view since earlier this year after Owens filed a fiery motion containing numerous sensitive exhibits, such as investigative files featuring unverified claims that Lumumba had connections to a local drug dealer.
On Friday, Jordan ordered federal clerks to begin unsealing many documents. But he also indicated that some files will be restricted until the trial’s conclusion. Even then, certain ones will remain redacted.
Jordan also denied requests from Lumumba and Banks to sever the trial. The former mayor had sought a separate trial in part because he views the district attorney as the “more culpable co-defendant,” the judge wrote.
In its fall 2024 indictment, the federal government had included inflammatory comments from Owens. Lumumba had argued these statements could taint the jury’s perception of his alleged actions. Lumumba also argued that Owens’ legal strategy has, so far, resulted in blowback for him and that the former mayor will likely have no opportunity to cross-examine the district attorney at trial.
In response to these concerns, Jordan wrote that he was optimistic about a jury’s ability to understand the sprawling saga.
Lumumba “worries about the ‘many vulgar and amoral statements’ Owens made,” Jordan wrote. “But the Court believes under these circumstances — and with only three defendants — the jury will be able to keep the facts straight and follow the instruction to consider the defendants separately.”
An indictment accuses Owens, Lumumba and Banks of allegedly taking bribes from real estate developers who were actually undercover FBI agents. Prosecutors allege the scheme worked like this: The agents funneled money through an unsuspecting Owens to Lumumba and Banks, who were then supposed to help the developers secure the city’s approval to use federal funds to build a downtown convention center hotel.
The indictment quoted Owens at length bragging about his supposed ability to launder money and bribe local politicians.
“That’s why we have businesses. To clean the money,” Owens allegedly told the undercover agents.
Prosecutors plan to play some of the recorded statements at trial, but Owens had hoped the judge would limit this activity. The district attorney argued that some of his comments have nothing to do with the charges he’s facing and are merely “prejudicial” – that is, designed to bias jurors against him.
Jordan agreed with some of Owens’ points, but the judge noted that Owens’ chosen defense of entrapment had resulted in a double-edged sword for the district attorney.
An entrapment defense requires a public official to prove they were not inclined to break the law without the government’s influence. This argument opens the door for prosecutors to show that the public official was already engaging in corruption.
In Owens’ case, prosecutors could cite his comments. Jordan wrote that Owens’ statements could show his “predisposition – an issue for which he has opened the door by asserting entrapment.”
Owens said in court papers that he is a diagnosed alcoholic and claimed the federal government entrapped him by plying him with alcohol. He said a “drunken rant” caused the salacious statements attributed to him in the government’s indictment, according to court filings.
Lumumba says he took no ‘official action’
All three men going to trial have pleaded not guilty. Jordan’s orders revealed Banks does not intend to argue entrapment and it’s unlikely Lumumba will.
Banks will argue he is innocent, while Lumumba primarily contends he did not take an “official action” in exchange for bribes from the developers.
In the indictment, prosecutors alleged that Lumumba accepted $50,000 in campaign donations in exchange for assisting the developers, who purported to represent a company called Facility Solutions Team, in obtaining the city’s blessing to build a convention center hotel in downtown Jackson.
While on a yacht off the coast of Florida, the indictment alleges that Lumumba discussed the payment Owens was going to give him on behalf of the developers. Then he placed a call asking a city employee to shorten the bid window for the hotel development.
Lumumba described this action as “ministerial at best,” according to court documents, thus not in line with how federal law and the courts have defined an official action a public official must take as part of a quid pro quo.
But the judge pointed out a technical issue with this defense. Jordan wrote that none of the five charges for which Lumumba is actually indicted include the term “official action” in their statutory definitions.
The judge also rejected arguments from Lumumba claiming that the federal government included falsehoods in the indictment.
Jordan wrote that the former mayor claimed prosecutors sought to convince the grand jury that the city was under a time crunch to meet the terms of a federal loan backing the downtown development.
In reality, the city had been granted an extension, according to Lumumba’s arguments. In response, prosecutors said the government had checked the dates of the loan with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. No extension was mentioned.
“The Government contends … no one advanced the ‘narrative’ that Lumumba moved the SOQ deadline because he was desperate to secure a developer,” Jordan wrote. “Indeed, the Government’s theory is that Lumumba did not have the City’s ‘best interests in mind at all when he took that $50,000.’”
Jordan wrote that Lumumba also plans to introduce a 35-minute speech that he gave during the fateful trip to Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Prosecutors had claimed the speech would “confuse the jury,” but the judge wrote that he would allow Lumumba’s team to attempt to offer it as evidence at trial.
This article was originally published by Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Source: Original Article
