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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT