Warm Springs businessman Ted Suhl remains scheduled for a federal bribery trial next week after a judge decided Friday that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Virginia bribery case merely confirms that Suhl's charges "should be left to a properly instructed jury."
U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson issued a six-page order Friday afternoon denying a last-minute effort by Suhl's attorneys to have his indictment thrown out based on the June 27 high court ruling. Wilson also changed the starting date of Suhl's trial from Tuesday to Wednesday.
Suhl faces charges of conspiracy, honest services wire fraud, violating the Travel Act and federal funds bribery, all based on allegations that from 2007 through 2011, he bribed Steven B. Jones, then the deputy director of the state Department of Human Services, in exchange for Jones taking official actions to benefit Suhl's businesses.
Jones, of Marion, has pleaded guilty to accepting bribes, is serving a 2½-year sentence and is expected to testify against Suhl. Also expected to testify as a witness for the government is Phillip Carter, a former West Memphis city councilman and Crittenden County juvenile probation officer who has admitted to being a middleman who helped pass bribes between Suhl and Jones.
Suhl operated mental-health companies that received more than $125 million in Medicaid reimbursements during that time through one of the state divisions that Jones oversaw.
Defense attorneys asked Wilson to throw out the charges against Suhl because the recent high court ruling throwing out the 2014 bribery convictions of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell clarified that any "official acts" taken in exchange for bribes cannot consist of merely routine political favors.
The attorneys said that based on the ruling, the indictment against Suhl fails to allege that Jones took any "official acts" on Suhl's behalf.
The high court said that the statutory definition of "official acts" was so broad that it covered "nearly anything a public official does, from arranging a meeting to inviting a guest to dinner."
"So the Court insulated public officials from running afoul of the federal bribery statute for engaging in common constituent outreach activities like setting up meetings, talking about issues, and organizing events," Wilson said.
But he said the statute that the Supreme Court cited as being vague wasn't one of the same statutes under which Suhl was charged.
The statute under which Suhl is charged with federal funds bribery "contains no explicit requirement of an 'official act,'" he said. "Instead, all that is required is that a person: corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent ... of a State ... in connection with any business, transaction or series of transactions of such organization, government or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more."
Wilson noted that the 6th, 7th, 9th and 11th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have all held that the statute under which Suhl is charged -- United States Code 18, Section 666 -- "does not require a bribe to be given with the intent to influence an official act."
The indictment against Suhl "includes allegations and all necessary elements sufficient to set out a charge for a violation" of Section 666, Wilson said. He noted that it alleges that Suhl "knowingly and corruptly" gave money through middlemen to the deputy director of DHS to get the deputy director to take actions that would benefit Suhl and his companies.
Similarly, Wilson said, the federal statutes under which Suhl was charged with honest services wire fraud contain "no explicit 'official act' requirement."
Wilson noted that he has already ruled that the indictment against Suhl "was facially valid and had sufficient detail" to put Suhl on notice of the accusations against him.
Citing the indictment, he said Suhl "asked an agent of the State to help him get placed on a review board, to support certain legislation, to open up a referral process, and to award no-bid contracts. Normally, this would not be a violation of the law. However, once [Suhl] allegedly paid thousands of dollars to influence or reward an agent of the State in connection with these business dealings between [Suhl], his companies, and the State agent, the alleged actions fall under the statutes in the Indictment."
In response to the defense team's claims that the government hasn't proven that any state action was taken in connection with the alleged bribes, Wilson wrote: "It is [Suhl's] allegedly corrupt giving with intent to influence or reward the State agent's action that is relevant here, not whether or not the agent took the actions [Suhl] wanted."
The trial begins at 9 a.m. Wednesday in Wilson's Little Rock courtroom.
Metro on 07/09/2016