Defense attorneys turn tough in Bales trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

SOUTH BEND — The legal team representing real estate broker John M. Bales and partner William E. Spencer haven't called their first witness and already they're putting up a spirited fight as federal prosecutors seek to prove charges including bank, mail and wire fraud.

During the trial in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, defense attorneys have attacked state officials who oversaw the state's contract with Bales' firm Venture Real Estate Services, attacked IBJ's coverage of an unusual state lease deal in Elkhart that led to the charges, and attacked a former co-defendant who bought the Elkhart building using a down payment provided by Bales.

But Larry Mackey, a former federal prosecutor who gave the government's closing argument against Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, on Thursday delivered the most dramatic courtroom moments in the Bales trial during his cross examination of Jeff Lozer, general counsel for Indiana's Department of Child Services.

A government witness, Lozer recalled a conversation he had with Spencer before the Elkhart deal closed. Spencer told Lozer that Venture may consider "financial assistance" to help the landlord and expedite the move for DCS, Lozer testified under direct examination.

"My response was one of gratitude — their approach was to be creative on our behalf," said Lozer, who is friends with Spencer. "I was grateful for the offer."

Lozer said he couldn't remember whether he told Spencer that Venture should seek approval of such an arrangement from the Indiana Department of Administration, which oversaw the company's contract with the state.

Prosecutors say the secret arrangement between Bales and Page was a violation of a leasing agreement between Venture and the state that barred the company from direct or indirect ownership of properties where state agencies leased space. The defense argues the arrangement was a loan and not ownership.

During cross examination, Mackey showed Lozer notes from an FBI interview and the transcript of his grand jury testimony in January 2011 and asked him why he did not appear to mention the Spencer conversation in the interview but did mention it under oath. He also pushed Lozer about his failure to disclose the conversation to anyone else at the state after IBJ began reporting on the Elkhart deal.

Lozer acknowledged he didn't follow up with Venture to ask whether they had offered the Elkhart landlord financial assistance, but said he wasn't sure whether he told anyone else at the state including Harless.

"Is not sure 'yes', 'no', or 'I don't know'," Mackey snapped.

"I don't know," Lozer answered.

"You kept that fact a secret from everyone in December 2009, even though it was in the newspaper, right?" Mackey asked.

"Right," Lozer answered.

A few minutes later, Lozer again answered a Mackey question with, "I'm not sure."

"You know this is a criminal case, Mr. Lozer, it's very serious," Mackey responded, his voice forceful. "You did not seize the opportunity to set the record straight?"

Mackey pressed Lozer on why he didn't mention the conversation with Spencer during an interview with IBJ reporter Cory Schouten, whom Mackey pointed out in the courtroom.

"Was there an ounce of regret when you hung up with Mr. Schouten ... and didn't tell him what you know?" Mackey asked, referring to the reporter.

The government objected to the question, and the judge sustained.

Mackey, his voice rising, told Lozer the stakes were different in January 2011, that Lozer could lie to a reporter, but not to a grand jury.

Eyes widened in the jury box. A trial that has featured a blizzard of contracts and email records suddenly felt like an episode of "Law & Order."

"Does it occur to you you could be prosecuted for lying to the FBI?" Mackey continued. "Either it's a conversation that you remember and never forget or one that goes out of your memory."

The government again objected to the question, and the judge sustained.

Mackey walked toward Lozer, in a softer voice, asking how sure he was on a scale of one to 10 that he told Spencer to disclose the Elkhart arrangement to IDOA.

"Five out of 10," Lozer answered.

"So at best we're 50-50," Mackey said, his voice rising again.

"Did your phone work in 2008?" Mackey asked, sarcastically.

"Yes, I believe so," Lozer answered.

"Can we just say thank you to a generous man who put up his own money ... so kids wouldn't have to be in a bullet-ridden building?" Mackey asked.

"I should've picked up the phone but I probably didn't," Lozer finished.

Thursday's courtroom action also included sharp questions from the defense for Steve Harless, who manages office leasing for the state on behalf of the Department of Administration.

Mackey said Harless treated Venture unfairly, favoring its competitor Resource Commercial Real Estate. He also asked him pointed questions about his response to an IBJ records request, which he forwarded to Venture, and his reaction when IBJ reporter Cory Schouten stopped by his office unannounced to check on the status of a records request.

"Didn't you get to know that day he didn't always get it right?" Mackay said, referring to the reporter.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jesse Barrett objected to the question, and the judge sustained the objection. Harless didn't answer, but Mackey had sent his message to the jury.

The prosecution also took testimony from Mike Sibbing, a closing agent who worked on the Elkhart deal, to discuss several documents critical to its case. Among them: internal title company documents that show Bales wired the entire down payment for the building even though he was not listed as a buyer or lender on closing statements.

On cross examination, Barclay asked whether anyone at Venture asked Sibbing to conceal or destroy the documents showing the source of funds. Sibbing said no.

The prosecution is on track to finish its case by Monday, and the defense expects its case could take about three days. The trial began Jan. 28 and was scheduled to last up to two weeks.

The IBJ is a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I commend Joe for standing up to this tyrant attorney! You ask why? Well I’m one of David Steele victims. I was in desperate need of legal help to protect my child, David saw an opportunity, and he demanded I pay him $3000. Cash. As I received motions and orders from court he did nothing! After weeks of emails asking him to address the legal issues, he responded by saying he was “on vacation “and I should be so lucky to have “my attorney” reply. Finally after lie on top of lie I asked for a full refund, which he refused. He then sent me “bills” for things he never did, such as, his appearance in the case and later claimed he withdrew. He never filed one document / motion for my case! When I finally demanded he refund my money he then turn to threats which scared my family for our lives. It seem unreal we couldn’t believe this guy. I am now over $100,000 in debt digging out of the legal mess he caused my family. Later I was finally able to hire another law office. I met Joe and we worked diligently on my case. I soon learn Joe had a passion for helping people. As anyone who has been through a legal battle it is exhausting. Joe was always more than happy to help or address an issue. Joe was knowledgeable about all my concerns at the same time he was able to reduce the stress and anxieties of my case. He would stay late and come in early, he always went the extra mile to help in any way he could. I can only imagine what Joe and his family has been through, my prayers go out to him and all the victims.

  2. Steele did more than what is listed too. He purposely sought out to ruin me, calling potential employers and then lied about me alleging all kinds of things including kidnapping. None of his allegations were true. If you are in need of an ethical and very knowledgeable family law paralegal, perhaps someone could post their contact information. Ethics cannot be purchased, either your paralegal has them or they do not.

  3. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  4. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  5. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise