Shoffner’s bid for appointed lawyer denied

The federal judge presiding over former state Treasurer Martha Shoffner’s bribery and extortion case refused Friday to appoint one of her previously retained attorneys so that he can continue representing her, but at the government’s expense.

On March 25, Shoffner said her financial resources were exhausted as a result of her March trial and asked that U.S. District Judge Leon Holmes allow one of her attorneys, Grant Ballard, to continue representing her under the court’s Criminal Justice Act plan, which allows judges to appoint attorneys to represent indigent people at government expense.

Shoffner, 69, was convicted of bribery and extortion charges March 11 after a week-long trial. A federal jury found that she accepted at least $36,000 in cash over a three-year period from a bond broker to whom she directed the lion’s share of the state’s bond business. She resigned as treasurer May 21 after the criminal charges were filed against her, losing her $52,000 annual salary.

She is seeking to have those convictions thrown out and faces a second trial on mail-fraud charges starting Dec. 1.

In her motion for an appointed counsel, Shoffner said that her lead attorney, Charles “Chuck” Banks of Little Rock, plans to continue to represent her without seeking an appointment but that she is out of funds to continue paying her other attorney, Grant Ballard, who is with Banks’ law firm. She attached a financial affidavit stating that her monthly income now consists solely of $1,344 from Social Security and $700 from her state retirement. She said she has an $892 monthly mortgage payment and has about $500 in utility bills each month, as well as a credit-card bill of about $200 a month.

ADVERTISEMENT

More headlines

Ballard has been leading the effort to have the convictions thrown out on the basis of his arguments that the government’s proof at trial didn’t show that the allegations against her constituted federal violations. Prosecutors disagree, and both sides are awaiting Holmes’ ruling on the matter.

In a brief order filed Friday, Holmes addressed only the question of whether Shoffner is entitled to appointed counsel. He said her request was denied even “assuming, without deciding,” that her affidavit shows she is entitled to it.

“It is not the practice of the Court to appoint retained counsel after the client’s funds are exhausted,” he said. “In some instances, where continued representation may cause an extreme hardship on counsel, the Court may relieve counsel and appoint a public defender or a member of the Court’s CJA Plan panel.”

He added that it isn’t his practice “to appoint counsel to assist retained counsel, nor is this a case in which the court likely would appoint two lawyers to represent Shoffner if she did not have retained counsel and if she qualified for appointed counsel.”

Shoffner didn’t indicate in her motion how much she has paid in attorneys’ fees so far. She said she entered into legal representation with the Banks firm in May 2013, and that the “legal fees and costs to date have exhausted her financial resources,” leaving her unable to pay for further representation.

She said she had tried unsuccessfully to borrow or otherwise secure funds for her defense from family, friends or other credit sources.

In the motion, Banks noted that the Criminal Justice Act Plan allows a court to appoint an attorney who isn’t a member of the plan’s panel if the appointment “is in the interest of justice, judicial economy, or continuity of representation.” The panel consists of preselected attorneys whom the court turns to if the federal public defender’s office has a conflict.

Banks said the work Shoffner’s attorneys have already done in her case “provides necessary background, insight, and ability needed” to defend her, and using them instead of appointing new counsel would “expedite time and minimize preparation and expenses,” promoting judicial economy.

“Given the late stage of the proceedings involving this Defendant and the complexity of this case, the interests of justice seem to weigh in favor of Grant Ballard remaining as counsel for Shoffner,” the motion said.

Federal prosecutors didn’t file a response to the motion.

In Shoffner’s second jury trial scheduled for later this year, she faces charges accusing her of using campaign expenses to pay $9,800 in personal credit-card expenses. She has pleaded innocent.

Front Section, Pages 1 on 04/12/2014

Upcoming Events