BMORENEWS.com

Noted Journalist Charles Robinson

By Charles Robinson, Noted Journalist

(BALTIMORE – November 23, 2009) - The high drama that was predicted in the Shelia Dixon theft trial never materialized. We were promised many things by both sides in this case.

They told us we would see a dastardly lover who took advantage of an unwitting public official; a conniving public official who stole from the poor and engrossed herself at the expense of those who didn’t have means; and a paper trail that would connect the dots. Well, not exactly.

The venue was ready for high drama. The courtroom was packed with Mayor Shelia Dixon supporters. Public officials (Senator Lisa Gladden, Delegate Curt Anderson, and Councilman Robert Curran) are seated with those with no title. Black women in attendance believe they are being maligned through the prosecution of this mayor. White suburbanites in the audience who view everything that is wrong with the city are poised to see Dixon go down. Let’s just say the air was thick with mendacity…standing room only.

Closing arguments are supposed to be where prosecutions layout the case and defenses point-out weaknesses and inconsistencies. Three players are on stage: Prosecutor Shelly Glen, Prosecutor Robert Rohrbaugh and Defense Attorney Arnold Weiner. To use a football analogy, game faces are locked and loaded ... ready for play.

Problems That Need to Be Solved

Prosecutor Glen and company must get the jurors to get three days of testimony out of their heads because the judge has thrown out anything associated with Ronald Lipscomb (mayor’s former boyfriend). The focus is on Developer Patrick Turner who supplied former City Council President Dixon with gift cards from Best Buy.

Turner’s testimony is damning for the mayor. He has told the court he received a call from the mayor to provide gift cards for years 2005 and 2006. He never receives a thank you note. The prosecution suggests several calls to her personal “Blackberry” were “thank you calls” because they came after the purchase.

As I’m watching this trial I’ve become a “fashionista.” Jimi Choo Shoes and Hobo purses are now permanent fixtures in my designer nomenclature. The Hobo purse was purchased by Dixon from a leftover gift card from Turner.

The other issue is to link gift cards associated with the “Holly Trolley.” It’s tied up with a bow through the testimony of Reginald Scriber and Lindberg Carpenter. The pair worked for the Baltimore Department of Housing, which set up the trolley. Lindberg has plead guilty to stealing seven Toys-R-Us gift cards. He also sat up the operation to where he explained how he handed out the cards, but failed to collect them following the event. The cards given to the mayor that weren’t used were found in her home.

The prosecution ends with “It doesn’t make sense…she couldn’t get this far in life without knowing the cards weren’t from Turner.”

A Point of View Inconsistent With the Facts

Arnold Weiner uses a more folksy/colloquial approach (some of my media colleagues suggest he is yelling…I don’t get that). His closing is impassioned and for my money had the biggest impact. Fewer technical tricks and more connection with the courtroom audience and jury.

“What’s been put on you is what you need to remember to forget,” (the crowd snickers), a reference to the judge’s decision to eliminate nearly three-fourths of the evidence.

Lipscomb was Weiner’s ace but with him not testifying, he’s got to go after Turner and the Holly Trolley. He wants to plant reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds. He does so by suggesting the Best Buy gift cards were sent to her personally, rather than to the office. (This has its own problems because they aren’t reported on ethics forms…that’s for another trial).

In the Holly Trolley count it’s alleged the Mayor “stole” the cards and abused her office. The Defense reminded the jury of the instructions the judge gave them. “The mere possession of gift cards does not constitute theft.” This is important because it takes the bite out of the notion the prosecution was trying to portray: "the mayor knowingly kept those gift cards in her home."

When he finishes, the courtroom audience applauds. This isn’t how it’s supposed to be. Weiner looks to the crowd and says, "No." The judge chastises the audience, but the deed has been done. The jury is stunned by this emotion.

The Rebuttal

Rohrbaugh is the last lawyer the jury will hear. He begins with “The verdict will not be based on the people in this audience.” The Prosecutor instinctively knows Weiner has provided an alternate set of the facts. “The defense can’t hide from the evidence.”

In a bit of theatrics, Rohrbaugh lays out 19 cards on the rail before the jury. “Count them.”

Analysis

Behind closed doors, the jury must make several decisions which I think is daunting. Reading the instructions could pose the biggest challenge. Counts One and Four are associated with Developer Patrick Turner and his gift cards. Count One deals with “Theft”. Count Two deals with “Fraudulent Misappropriation by a Fiduciary (legalese). Here’s the rub, which is in the instructions.

“You can not find the Defendant guilty of both Counts One and Four. If you find the Defendant “guilty of Count One, you must find the Defendant “not guilty” of Count Four. On the other hand, if you find the Defendant “guilty” of Count Four, you must find the Defendant “not guilty” of Count One. You may, of course, find the Defendant “not guilty” of both Counts 1 and 4.”

You’ve got to be kidding me. You need a law degree just to decipher this mess. There are similar instructions for the remaining five counts. Wow.

I believe the heart of this case is about the believability of the mayor, who hasn’t testified. Remember, she did not have a romantic relationship with Turner, which was the heart of the Lipscomb attack. But according to the mayor’s attorney, these gift cards came in the same manner as previous cards from Lipscomb. Hmm! I discount the “Holly Trolley” cards because the testimony was provided by convicted felons ... not a good look.

What’s the Worst That Could Happen?

A guilty verdict or an acquittal is clean but a hung jury is problematic. Would the prosecution retry this case? If the prosecution doesn’t retry, does it affect the mayor and her ability to move an agenda forward? The jury composition, I believe, favors the mayor. What must be going through their minds? This is the first time a Baltimore mayor has been on trial. The fact this trial features the first ever African-American woman mayor of Baltimore City makes it remarkable.

Tags: mayor, sheila dixon, trial