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 to 12 members of Congress in a brief filed Tuesday with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

{mosads}Wilkes’s legal team issued subpoenas for documents and testimony to 12 members of Congress in early September, including former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.); House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.); and 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 Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), was withdrawn.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 more than $600,000 in cash as well as gifts and favors such as luxurious trips, antiques, boats and the services of prostitutes. In return, the California Republican helped secure $80 million in defense contracts for Wilkes’s firms. Cunningham is serving an eight-year sentence for accepting bribes from Wilkes and others.
The defense team’s brief opposes the House general counsel’s motion, filed last week, to quash the subpoenas. That motion argued that the Constitution’s speech and debate clause protects lawmakers from judicial interference with legislative activity and “from compelled disclosure of legislative information.”

“While it is not uncommon for criminal defendants and other litigants to seek such information from congressional parties and entities in court, no court has ever compelled such disclosure, and this court should not,” the motion reads.
The general counsel also argued that the information and testimony being sought does not appear to be “relevant” to the case and amounts to little more than “a fishing expedition.”

As of press time, U.S. Judge Larry Burns had not filed a ruling on whether to quash the subpoenas.

In his response, Wilkes’s lawyer, celebrity attorney Mark Geragos, wrote that the House general counsel’s office ignores the main issue before the court: 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, 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 the speech and debate clause prevented a defendant from calling legislators to his defense in cases alleging corruption of the legislative process. He also wrote that the speech and debate clause covers only specific acts within the “legislative sphere” and does not bar a legislator from testifying in a criminal case.

In addition, Geragos asserted that several of the subpoenaed lawmakers 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.

That assertion could spell trouble for lawmakers with ties to Wilkes who could be called to testify.

Doolittle, who was subpoenaed in a separate federal grand jury probe of his and his wife’s relationship with jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff, accepted $46,000 in campaign contributions from Wilkes and employees of Wilkes’s firms. He has acknowledged helping steer $37 million in contracts Wilkes’s way, but says he did so based on the projects’ merits.
Meanwhile, Lewis, who is under FBI investigation for his ties to lobbyist Bill Lowery, accepted $60,000 from Wilkes and employees of Wilkes’s firms. Wilkes-owned ADCS Inc. was one of Lowery’s clients.

In another development in the Cunningham case, Judge Burns has postponed the trial of a defendant accused of conspiring to bribe the former lawmaker because the former has come down with meningitis.

John Michael, who is accused of money-laundering and obstruction of justice, was set to stand trial this week along with Wilkes.

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

Jury selection for Wilkes’s trial will begin Wednesday, but opening statements and first witnesses will not be heard until Oct. 9.

Both Wilkes and Michael have pleaded not guilty.