BMORENEWS.com

Attorney Arnold Weiner and Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon

The Case of Sheila Dixon 

By Charles Robinson

(Baltimore – November 16, 2009) – Welcome to the latest drama of an urban Black elected official on trial for issues related to their office. The landscape is littered with these types of trials dating back to Mayor Marion Barry (Washington), Mayor Bill Campbell (Atlanta), and yes, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (Detroit). The details are usually salacious and the current case involving Baltimore Mayor Shelia Dixon will add to this list of strange and unusual urban tales.

Mayor Dixon’s problems stem from when she was the City Council President. Federal Prosecutors have been “gunning” for her since 2006. The feds indicted her sister then for being a part of a scheme to defraud the city using its minority set-aside program. Her sister is in jail and the logic is they would go after Dixon. But the feds turned down the opportunity to get the incoming Mayor leaving it to the state prosecutor (a Republican) to make the case. With a grand jury investigation coming to an end in January, an indictment was handed up on twelve counts. The prosecution alleges she stole gift cards targeted for the poor and instead she used them (a damning accusation if it is proved true).

After several months, a judge threw-out the case saying there wasn’t sufficient evidence. But the prosecutor was able to get the mayor’s ex-boyfriend (Ron Lipscomb) to turn state's evidence and the indictments were re-instated. No double jeopardy. The trial was broken into two parts. The first case will deal with the mayor secretly accepting more than $20,000 worth of gift cards from developers doing business with the city, sometimes masking it as charity to needy Baltimore families. A second trial will deal with perjury on her role in awarding contracts for developments (that trial starts in March 2010).

The key for both cases is Lipscomb of Doracon Contracting Co., a minority contractor doing business with the city. Yea, this is where it gets messy.

Opening Statements

There is nothing like a little drama to start things.  An alternate juror (an African-American man over 50) is standing before the judge and collapses. There is no discussion about what happen (only a suggestion from Judge Sweeny the case be moved to a cooler courtroom).  Later, we learn he is removed and another alternate takes his position. The prosecution also wanted to bring in a third witness at the last minute and is rebuked by the judge.

The list of witnesses is all over the place. In addition to Lipscomb, the jury will hear from Randall Finney of Doracon Contracting Co. - who bought the cards and delivered them to the Mayor (he gets immunity for his testimony); Maryland Congressman Ellijah Cummings; Jasmine Hampton - the mayor’s daughter; Rev. Frank Reid - the pastor of one of the largest churches in Baltimore; John Paterakis - a business mogul in Baltimore; Richard Burton - an actor from HBO's "The Wire" and former city employee; and Former State Delegate/Deputy Mayor Salima Marriott.

Remember, all this happens before the jury is seated. When they arrive, I note gender, age and race. The prosecution employed a jury consultant to help with their selection. Of the 12, I make note of a couple of things. There are two brothers under 30 - one has braids; an elderly African-American man in his fifties; two white women - one in her 30’s and another may be close to 50; there is an Asian woman in her mid-thirties; and the rest are made up of African-American women who are close in age to the mayor.

What’s this Case About?

State Prosecutor Robert A. Rohrbaugh gets things started with a Power Point presentation, a stack of gift cards, and an introduction which links the purchases of the cards to the mayor. In some instances, the purchase of items from electronics stores Best Buy and Circuit City are done within hours of a handoff. In the case of Best Buy, where an Xbox is purchased, 10 cards are used and the mayor uses her bonus points card which links her to the purchase. On one receipt it says, “Thank you Sheila.”

The prosecution says it will focus on December 19 -23, 2006. During this time, gift cards are also used from Giant Supermarket and Old Navy. Some of these cards were handed out at a Holiday Office party at City Hall.  The presentation shows only one needy person was given a gift card.

To add to this information, the prosecutor says several of the purchased items were discovered in the raid on the mayor’s home. It includes a video camera, a camera bag, a DVD player, and several cards which were not used.

He ends with, “When you steal, it’s a theft; when you steal and are a public servant, it’s breach of the public trust.”

An Opposing View

Arnold M. Weiner is representing the defense. He starts with “What you have heard about the gift cards is not in dispute.” He argues the cards were given to her (the mayor) to use as she saw fit. This seems like a stretch. He argues the prosecution never mentions Ronald Lipscomb, whose name dots the indictment.  He argues this case is about relationships, namely the relationship between Lipscomb and Dixon.

Weiner emphasizes the cards were “to be used at her discretion.” This is where things kind of go off in soap-opera mode. According to the defense, this relationship begins in 2002 when Dixon separates from her husband. It’s during this time it’s alleged Lipscomb worked his way into the mayor’s circle of associates and by 2004 is pursuing her in a romantic way. To illustrate this point, the defense says Ms. Dixon is given a $2,000 gift card to a local fur store in 2003. According to Weiner, “Lipscomb lavishes her with gifts.”

The mayor, according to Weiner, begins to realize there is an untrustworthy side to Lipscomb.  Remember the developer is trying to impress the mayor. It’s alleged he often buys flowers signing anonymous. Lipscomb is using his company to pay for these items and they are logged as “business expenses.” He also begins purchasing gift cards for the holidays starting in 2004. How does he record this expense not as charity but a “business expense?” The same thing happens in 2005.

By 2006, the state prosecutor raids Lipscomb’s office. Following the raid, the state makes a deal with the developer according to the defense, “the one way to buy his way out of charges they intend to file is to testify against the mayor.” This would be fine except what about their relationship?  On June 5^th and 10^th, it’s alleged the developer tells the prosecution he can “tell a story which is believable.” This sounds desperate because the prosecution is putting it’s faith in Lipscomb as a credible witness.

This is when the defense unveils a placard to the courtroom. Lipscomb has told prosecutors “if Dixon had called directly in 2004, 2005 or 2006,” he would not have answered her call. Weiner says there is a problem. He points to the investigator who is sitting in the front row. He says the police have subpoenaed the developer’s phone records. They show calls going back and forth between he and the mayor over this time (Christmas Eve, New Year's, and Thanksgiving to name a few times). Wiener says, “This is a lie.”

We find out Lipscomb was facing 12 years in jail for falsifying business information and cooking the books. In exchange for his full cooperation, Lipscomb was given probation before judgment.  This is damning if it is true.

The defense also shoots holes in possible testimony from Patrick Turner, another developer who provided gift cards suggesting they came in a blank envelope which lead the mayor to believe they were from Lipscomb because they arrive during the holiday season. There is no note nor is there any follow-up. The mayor just does what she has done in the past. This a slight stretch.

Analysis

What is the truth in this case? The witnesses will be heard, the evidence will be produced, and each side will poke holes in arguments and facts.

The prosecution believes the mayor used her power as the chief executive of the city to ask for help for the needy. Then, instead of using those gifts to help the unfortunate, she used them to buy personal material goods.

Conversely, the defense believes this is about a relationship gone wrong. If this aspect of the case gets exposed, it will follow a pattern where a mayor allowed sexual indiscretion to bring down their administration. It’s this aspect of the case where innuendo, and who did what to whom could make this very messy. This is also about CYA and trying to avoid jail time.

I don’t know if the mayor will testify, but I kind of doubt it. Several participants who sat near me kept saying, “I can’t believe this is happening.” Well it is. Just remember there is also a second trial. I’ll keep my eye on this one and hope you will.

Tags: arnold weiner, Baltimore, gift cards, mayor sheila dixon, ronald lipscomb, sex