ILNews

Durham attorney vows to appeal guilty verdict

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An attorney for convicted fraud mastermind Tim Durham vowed Thursday to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to prove his client did nothing wrong.

Attorneys for Jim Cochran and Rick Snow likely will follow suit in the coming months after a federal jury on Wednesday evening returned a guilty verdict on all 12 felony counts for Durham, eight of 12 for Cochran and five of 12 for Snow.

The government had accused the men of running Ohio-based Fair Finance as a Ponzi scheme that stole more than $200 million from 5,000 Ohio investors who purchased investment certificates from the consumer-loan company.

Durham attorney John Tompkins said he will review the trial record in the next few weeks but expects his appeal will focus on what he claims were improper government wiretaps of Durham phone conversations with Cochran and Snow.

Tompkins tried to keep the jury from hearing the recordings — which were key to the government's case — first by claiming they were obtained without probable cause and later by saying the government ignored segments that cast Durham in a more positive light when it edited 1,800 conversations down to just 19 snippets.

He also plans to take another look at comments made by a fellow defense attorney that led Tompkins to ask for a mistrial shortly before the case went to the jury.

U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett said his team will do whatever it takes to defend the jury's ruling.

"Many of the defense objections that were raised at trial frankly echoed their objections filed with the court prior to trial," Hogsett said in an interview after the ruling Wednesday. "We will vigorously defend this case on appeal."

Veteran Indianapolis defense attorney Bob Hammerle called it a "certainty" that Durham, Cochran and Snow will appeal the convictions because that's "the only course of action left to them."

Hammerle said it is very likely the convictions will be upheld on appeal, noting that even the best appellate lawyers in the country don't approach the Major League Baseball-record .367 lifetime batting average of the legendary slugger Ty Cobb.

"No matter who you are, the odds are you're going to lose four out of every five appeals," Hammerle said.

The defense attorneys weren't alone in considering a potential appeal as the trial progressed. The possibility also influenced the prosecution's case, Hammerle said.

The court reserved a full three weeks for the trial, but the prosecution led by assistant U.S. Attorney Winfield Ong wound up using only six days to present its case.

"Mr. Ong is very good good as his analysis," Hammerle said. "He wanted to put out evidence that clearly shows what Durham did, but also not take a chance of creating problems on appeal."

Hammerle also noted Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson is known for being thorough and careful to avoid traps that can support appeals of convictions delivered in her courtroom.

Tompkins acknowledged the odds are long for a successful appeal but "every case really should be judged on its own merits." The appeal would start with the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th District, in Chicago.

He planned to meet with Durham at the Marion County Jail on Thursday to discuss their next moves.

The first priority for Tompkins — along with Cochran attorney Bill Dazey and Snow attorney Jeffrey Baldwin — is preparing for a hearing Monday at which Magnus-Stinson will determine whether the men should be released on home detention until a sentencing hearing in the next few months, where they would be entitled to call character witnesses.

The judge will determine prison sentences, which could amount to life in prison. Federal rules require inmates to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence even with good behavior. Under federal guidelines, the maximum for Durham's 12 convictions is 225 years.

Tompkins noted that several factors can be considered in sentencing, which is "very discretionary," but he said a sentence that amounts to life in prison is a "realistic possibility" for his client.

A New York judge in 2009 gave Bernie Madoff, who ran a $65 billion Ponzi scheme, a record 150-year sentence, though Madoff agreed to plead guilty before a trial. A judge in Houston last week gave R. Allen Stanford, who ran a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, a 110-year sentence.

For comparison, Madoff's scheme involved a dollar figure 325 times larger than the roughly $200 million fraud at Fair Finance.

Tompkins expects his appeal will focus on the government wiretaps that played a key role in the case against his client, but he's also looking for grounds in an exchange that led him to ask the judge for a mistrial before the case went to the jury Wednesday.

His concern: Cochran attorney Bill Dazey in his closing argument Tuesday had gone "too far."

Dazey left many in the courtroom including the other attorneys with the impression he had acknowledged there was a fraud at Fair Finance but that his client did not know it was happening.

"There was a scheme to defraud," Dazey said, but Durham did not clue in Cochran on the plan.

Tompkins argued the comment violated a trial rule that bars attorneys from stating personal opinions.

But a review of the record in open court Wednesday showed Dazey intended the statement as a hypothetical, suggesting that if the jury decided there was fraud, they should consider whether Cochran knew about it. A long pause between the "if" and the rest of his statement led many — including a prosecuting attorney who referenced Dazey's statement in his closing — to misinterpret.

The judge denied Tompkins' motion before calling in the jury to offer final instructions on their deliberations.

The U.S. Attorney's Office offered six days of testimony, thousands of pages of documents and recordings from FBI wiretaps as it tried to convince jurors the defendants ran Fair Finance as a Ponzi scheme. Prosecutors said the defendants gutted Fair by doling out tens of millions of dollars in related-party loans to Durham, Cochran, their friends and their failing businesses. Those loans were never repaid.

Defense attorneys blamed the 2009 collapse of the consumer-loan company on a "perfect storm" of a bad economy, bad press and newly skeptical Ohio regulators.

Defense presentations lasted less than two hours and did not include testimony from Durham or his co-defendants.

"I didn't get the picture across clearly enough," Tompkins said Thursday. "That's always disappointing."

An archive of IBJ's coverage of Tim Durham and Fair Finance is available here.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT