Wilkes’s lawyers make case for subpoenas

Lawyers for Brent Wilkes, the defense contractor accused of bribing former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.), laid out their case for issuing subpoenas for documents and testimony from 12 members of Congress two weeks ago in a brief filed with the court Tuesday.

{mosads}Wilkes’s legal team issued subpoenas for documents and testimony to 12 members of Congress two weeks ago, including: former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Reps. Jerry Lewis (R- Calif.), John Doolittle (R-Calif.), Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), Jerry Weller (R-Ill.), John Murtha (D-Pa.), Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) and Norm Dicks (D-Wash.). A 13th subpoena, issued to Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), was withdrawn.

Wilkes is accused of giving Cunningham $625,000 in cash, plus gifts and favors, such as luxurious trips, antiques, boats and the services of prostitutes, in exchange for help securing $80 million in defense contracts. Cunningham is serving an eight-year sentence for accepting the bribes from Wilkes and others.

U.S. Judge Larry Burns will decide whether to quash the subpoenas as early as Tuesday.

The brief opposes the House general counsel’s motion, filed last week, to quash the subpoenas. The House brief argued that the speech and debate clause in the Constitution protects lawmakers from judicial interference in legislative activity.

Wilkes’s lawyer, celebrity attorney Mark Geragos, wrote that the House general counsel’s office ignores the main issue before the court, namely, how Wilkes can defend himself against charges that he misused the legislative process if he is not permitted to inquire about the legislative process.

If the court grants the general counsel’s motion to quash the subpoenas, Geragos argued that Wilkes “will be in the position of a boxer fighting a match blindfolded.”

Geragos argued that the House general counsel failed to cite a single instance in which a court held that in a case alleging corruption of the legislative process, the speech and debate clause prevented a defendant from calling legislators to his defense. He also wrote that the speech and debate clause only covers specific acts within the “legislative sphere” and does not bar a legislator from testifying in a criminal case.

Geragos also asserted that several of the members of Congress subpoenaed have “direct knowledge and were participants in many of the activities listed in the indictment.”

“As such they are clearly subject to the subpoena power of the court and must give relevant testimony like any other witness,” he wrote.

In another development in the Cunningham case, a judge has postponed the trial of a defendant accused of conspiring to bribe the former lawmaker, because he has meningitis.

John Michael, who is accused of money-laundering and obstruction of justice, was set to stand trial this week along with businessman Wilkes. Wilkes’s trial will begin Wednesday with jury selection, but opening statements and first witnesses will not be heard until Oct. 9.

Judge Burns did not set a new date for Michael, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported Tuesday.

Both Wilkes and Michael have pleaded not guilty.