Warm Southern Breeze

"… there is no such thing as nothing."

A Rose By Any Other Name

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, July 25, 2019

Read this and tell me what you think.


Oversight of the Report on the Investigation into County Interference in the 1996 Mayoral Election: Former Dedicated Prosecutor Richard S. Mabry, Jr.

Councilman Tommy Lawry (Westside):
Thank you Superintendent Mabry for your long history of service to our country, including your service as a Marine, where you earned the Bronze Star with a ‘V’ device. I’d like to now turn to the elements of Obstruction of Justice as applied to the mayor’s attempts to curtail your investigation. The first element of Obstruction of Justice requires and obstructive act. Correct?

Mr. Mabry: Correct.

Lawry: I’d like to direct you to page 97 of Volume 2 of your report, and you wrote there on page 97, quote “Sitter was being instructed to tell the Dedicated Prosecutor to end the existing investigation into the mayor and his campaign,” unquote. That’s in the report – correct?

Mabry: Correct

Lawry: That would be evidence of an obstructive act because it would naturally obstruct an investigation. Correct?

Mabry: Ah… correct.

Lawry: Let’s now turn to the second element of the crime of Obstruction of Justice which requires a nexus to the official proceeding. Again, I’m going to direct you to page 97 – the same page in Volume 2 – and you wrote, quote, “by the time the mayor’s initial one-on-one meeting with LaChance on June 19, 1987, the existence of a grand jury investigation by the Dedicated Prosecutor was public knowledge.” That’s in the report – correct?

Mabry: Correct.

Lawry: That would constitute evidence of a nexus to an official proceeding, because the grand jury investigation is an official proceeding… correct?

Mabry: Yes.

Lawry: I can now turn to the final element of the crime of obstruction of justice. On that same page – page 97 – do you see where there’s an intent section on that page? (unintelligible)

Mabry: Correct.

Lawry: Would you be willing to read the first sentence?

Mabry: And that was starting with… ?

Lawry: Substantial evidence…

Mabry: Substantial evidence indicates that the mayor’s…?

Lawry: If you could read that first sentence.

Mabry: I’m happy to have you read it.

Lawry: Okay, I will read it. You wrote, quote, “Substantial evidence indicates that the mayor’s effort to have Sitter limit the scope of the Dedicated Prosecutor’s investigation into future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the mayor’s and his campaign’s conduct,” unquote. That’s in the report – correct?

Mabry: That is in the report, and I rely on what’s in the report…ah… to ah… to indicate ah… what’s happening in the paragraphs that we’ve been discussing.

Lawry: Thank you. To recap what we’ve heard, we have heard today that the mayor ordered former Mayor’s Office Prosecutor David Marshall to fire you. The mayor then ordered David Marshall to cover that up and create a false paper trail. And now we’ve heard the mayor Corey LaChance to tell James Sitter to limit your investigation that he – you – would stop investigating the mayor. I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of Obstruction of Justice have been met. And I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict David Teague is because of Legal Opinion stating that you cannot indict a mayor while he’s still in office – is that correct?

Mabry: That is correct.

Lawry: The fact that the orders by the mayor were not carried out… that is not a defense to Obstruction of Justice, because the statute itself is quite broad. It says that if you endeavor, or attempt to obstruct justice, that would also constitute a crime.

Mabry: I’m not getting into… ah… get into that at this juncture.

Lawry: Okay. Thank you. And, ah, based on the evidence that we’ve heard today, I believe a reasonable person could conclude that at least three crimes of Obstruction of Justice by the mayor occurred. We’re gonna’ hear about two additional crimes, and that would be the Witness Tampering by Mike Coffee, and Peter Makenzie (unintelligible).

Mabry: The only thing I wanna’ add is that, I’m going through the elements with you do not mean, does not mean, that I subscribe to the ah… the ah… what you’re trying to prove through those elements.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: