ILNews

Bales trial in jury's hands after colorful closings

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

SOUTH BEND — The jury began deliberations Thursday in the federal fraud trial of Indianapolis real estate broker John M. Bales and partner William E. Spencer after three hours of spirited closing arguments Wednesday.

A federal prosecutor and two top-tier Indianapolis defense attorneys representing Bales and Spencer closed their cases with a series of rhetorical flourishes and one-liners designed to stick with jurors as they consider whether the men are guilty of 13 felony charges, including bank, wire and mail fraud.

Previous coverage of the trial and Elkhart lease deal can be found here.

Here's a sample of what the attorneys had to say in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana:

— "Bales and Spencer decide to make extra money on a state deal, even though it's not allowed, and then hide it."  - Assistant U.S. Attorney Jesse Barrett, summarizing the government's case that the defendants defrauded the state and a bank by secretly taking any ownership interest in an Elkhart building the state later leased. Their company, Venture Real Estate Services, had a state contract that banned direct or indirect ownership in buildings where the firm brokered lease deals.

— "This is a fraud case where the defendant is the single biggest loser." - Bales defense attorney Larry Mackey, arguing both Bales and Spencer ultimately will lose money on their investment in the Elkhart building. He contends Bales put up his own money for a down payment on the building to expedite a move by the state's Department of Child Services out of a crime-plagued former office location.

— "The government is saying the victims here are the state and bank. We're saying the two victims are Mr. Spencer and Mr. Bales." - Spencer attorney Bernard Pylitt.

— "During this trial, I could almost feel Lady Justice looking over us and just shaking her head." - Mackey, just warming up.

— "Keep your eye on the ball, and the ball is Mr. Page, Mr. Page, Mr. Page." - Mackey, referring to Indianapolis attorney Paul J. Page, the deed owner of the Elkhart building, who declined to pony up his own down payment to buy the building.

— "It would have been so easy if there was no intent to cover up to say that 'we gave some money to Paul Page.'" - Barrett, on Venture's missed opportunities to come clean with state officials who questioned Venture's role in the Elkhart deal.

— "I'm going to show you 29 different times John Bales, Bill Spencer or someone at Venture lied to the state or bank about the Elkhart deal." - Barrett, before showing the jury 29 emails and other documents he argued advanced a cover-up.

— "The pathetic proof on the bank fraud tells you a lot about the rest of their case." - Mackey, noting that neither Bales nor Spencer signed for Page's bank loan from Huntington. Page was also charged but agreed in January to plead guilty and cooperate with the government.

— "Two weeks ago, Huntington gave Mr. Bales a car loan." - Mackey, suggested a truly defrauded bank might stop doing business with the one doing the defrauding.

— "I'm going to submit to you Paul Page earned the label." - Mackey, referring to the limited liability company called L&BAB that owned the Elkhart building. Bales used the acronym "lazy and broke-ass bitch" when he formed the company as an "inside joke" smearing Page.

— "Paul Page was the lazy and broken-ass bitch in this deal." - Pylitt.

— "Paul Page is a crook." - Mackey.

— "They knew when they approached him and formed the LLC that he was lazy and broke." - Barrett.

— "We gave you high-tech, now we're going low-tech." - Barrett, eschewing PowerPoint and instead showing the jury giant posters of financial statements Bales and Spencer submitted to another bank as they considered an outright purchase of the Elkhart building from Page in the summer of 2009. (Such a deal, which did not materialize, would have been an unequivocal violation of their state contract.) Both men showed as assets their interest in BAB Equity LLC, which provided the down payment for the Elkhart building. Bales valued his stake at $290,000, and Spencer valued his at $51,350.

— "A grand conspiracy born in the U.S. Attorney's Office." - Mackey, referring to the government's case.

— "At some point, it's not everyone else's fault." - Barrett.

— "You gotta evaluate a witness' credibility. He doesn't deserve any." - Mackey, referring to state leasing director Steve Harless, one of several government witnesses the defense sought to discredit.

— "Go back and guess these guys guilty. That's what the government is asking you do do." - Pylitt, on the lack of a definition of the term "indirect ownership" in Venture's contract with the state.

— "I know you told us none of you are reporters, but you can write tomorrow's headline, and this is what it should be: Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty." - Mackey.

— "You can be dumb, stupid and foolish, but that doesn't make you a criminal." - Pylitt, following Mackey in arguing their clients would not have left so many breadcrumbs had they intended to defraud the state or bank.

— "I can't tell you whether Bales or Spencer were smart crooks or stupid crooks." - Barrett.
 

The IBJ is a sister pubilcation of Indiana Lawyer.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT