Skip to main content

The Rowland Conviction, Unfinished Business


Here is a chicken or the egg question: In political corruption cases, should the targeting of suspects for prosecution precede or follow the investigation?

Most of us would agree that the targeting of conspirators and co-conspirators in political corruption trials should follow an investigation, because it is the investigation itself that determines culpability.

“First the verdict, then the trial,” says the Queen of Hearts in the topsy-turvy world of Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass.” The world confronted by Alice in Wonderland is supposed to be inverted, the way images are seen in a mirror. But in the real world, we want verdicts to follow trials and targeting in political corruption trials to follow complete and exhaustive investigations.

At some point in the corruption investigation of John Rowland, prosecutors decided to target Mr. Rowland as conspirator number one. Other apparently less important conspirators in the case were Brian Foley, the owner of Apple Rehab, and his wife Lisa Wilson Foley, then running in a Republican Party primary for the US House in Connecticut’s 5th District. At the time the investigation was opened, none of the principals involved were active politicians: Mr. Rowland, a former governor rebounding from an earlier corruption conviction, was a radio talk show host; Lisa Wilson Foley was an aspiring politician who previously had never held political office; and her husband, Brian Foley, was the founder of a lucrative business.

Once the targeting had occurred, prosecutors “turned” Brian Foley, who then became the chief witness at trial against Mr. Rowland. Before his great awakening, both Mr. Foley and his wife had insisted a) that Mr. Rowland had been paid $35,000 for services rendered to Apple Rehab, and b) that Mr. Rowland was tutoring Ms. Foley without pay during her unsuccessful run in the 5th District Republican primary. Andrew Roraback won the Republican primary and went on to lose in the general election to Elizabeth Esty, who captured the US House seat in the general election.

What was it that occasioned Mr. Foley’s conversion? Defense attorney Norm Pattis in a recent column suggested that prosecutors made Mr. Foley an offer he could not refuse. A plea to lesser charges as a reward for co-operation with the prosecution is one of the many tools available to prosecutors not found in the usual defense attorney tool box.

We may never know what undisclosed arrangements were made between Mr. Foley and prosecutors. We do know that prosecutorial privilege did permit aggressive prosecutors to offer Mr. Foley a deal in which he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for which he was sentenced to a fine he could well afford and three months in a half-way house.

Considering the rhetoric deployed by prosecutors in their summation arguments, Mr. Foley got off, as criminals sometimes say, with a “slap on the wrist,” if not a slap on the back.

“In the Rowland case,” Mr. Pattis wrote, “Brian Foley got a slap on the wrist, a brief period of home confinement, for conspiring to break campaign finance laws, a crime, the prosecution intoned at Rowland’s trial, that undermined the integrity of the republic.”

One of the “underminers,” investigative reporter Jon Lender reminds us, was Apple Rehab lawyer, Christian Shelton, who drafted the notorious contract between Mr. Rowland and Mr. Foley, the linchpin of the prosecution’s case against Mr. Rowland.

In an e-mail to Mr. Foley, Mr. Shelton -- unindicted co-conspirator “Attorney  1” in the prosecution’s indictment of Mr. Rowland – wrote “I would recommend that due to [Rowland's] background and the compliance issue that…the contract be between my Law Office and [Rowland] — that way there is no connections."

The indictment itself suggests that Mr. Foley and Apple Rehab’s attorney played a leading role in the deception for which Mr. Rowland was vigorously prosecuted. And the e-mail correspondence between Mr. Foley and Mr. Shelton strongly suggests that prosecutors may have suffered a numerology dysfunction. Mr. Foley, rather than Mr. Rowland, may have been conducting the deception orchestra. Mrs. Foley spoiled the tune somewhat when she suggested, continually during her defense, that Mr. Foley’s deception was so complete it fooled even her.  She thought – and said repeatedly in negotiations with prosecutors – that Mr. Foley was paying Mr. Rowland for legitimate consulting work he had performed for Apple Rehab.

Mr. Lender now wants to know when the statewide Bar Counsel and the Chief Disciplinary Counsel intend to sanction Mr. Shelton.


He will find that in Wonderland, where reality is inversely mirrored, political targeting is occasionally more important than investigations.

Comments

peter brush said…
"I would recommend that due to [Rowland's] background and the compliance issue that…the contract be between my Law Office and [Rowland] — that way there is no connections," the indictment said "Attorney 1" wrote.
Later in October 2011, according to the indictment, Attorney 1 emailed Foley again to say that "since the contract is with my firm, I am not concerned it will ever be discovered."
--------------------
Right; the perceived need for concealment was by the candidate's camp.
I thought our mania for campaign finance control came out of the Watergate fiasco in which money aimed at the candidate or his party was hidden and misused. Here the money going from the candidate to the consultant was hidden, not because the consultant was doing anything particularly controversial, let alone illegal, but because the candidate's camp was ashamed of him.
Whether he committed a crime, the attorney in this matter demonstrated his unprincipled pragmatic dishonesty. That in itself probably doesn't differentiate his from the ethics of many of our licensed attorneys at law. I would say that if I were in the market for a good, in the sense of effective, advocate for my shady interests I'd look for someone more skilled than Christian B. Shelton, Esquire. If I could, I'd ask Bill Klinton or his hideous wife to recommend a good operator in the Nutmeg jurisdiction.

Don Pesci said…
PB

That's exactly right.
peter brush said…
I'd ask Bill Klinton or his hideous wife to recommend a good operator in the Nutmeg jurisdiction
-------------
Actually, it being a case brought against the hapless Governor by the Federales despiadados, Rowland could use help from the Klintons regardless of jurisdiction. We doubt Rowland's slightly outre political orientation would prevent the open minded of Klinton Consultants, Inc., from doing their best to achieve social justice for a nominal fee.
----------
As the Clinton administration came to a close in early 2001, it was discovered that Hugh Rodham received around $400,000 for legal services regarding gaining the Presidential pardon of fraudulent businessman Glenn Braswell and the sentence commutation of drug trafficker Carlos Vignali.[7]

In March 2001, it was revealed that Tony Rodham had helped gain a March 2000 presidential pardon for Edgar Allen Gregory, Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo, a Tennessee couple in the carnival business who had been convicted of bank fraud.[13] The pardon was granted over the objections of the U.S. Justice Department.[13

Popular posts from this blog

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e