Balch & Bingham partner Joel I. Gilbert was found GUILTY ON ALL 6 counts and so was Drummond’s executive David Roberson.

Justice, Justice!

As Pulitzer prize-winning journalist John Archibald tweeted:

Now that the bribers and the bribee has been brought to justice, it is time to look at so many others involved in this case who looked the other way or were complicit in the travesty. It should not end here.

The CDLU was in the courtroom this afternoon. It was empty except for a handful of reporters and other observers.

Soon the defendants, family members, legal teams, and representatives of the U.S. Attorney’s Office arrived. Even U.S. Attorney Jay E. Town was there.

The jury entered. Members of the jury were happy and it appears there is congeniality among the group.

The judge dismissed the jury for the day, speaking to them at eye-level just below and near the witness stand, without a robe.

A veteran ex-prosecutor has told us it may take until Monday before verdicts are reached in that there is over two weeks of testimony for the jury to digest.

Until then, tick-tock, tick-tock.

Assistant U.S. Attorney George Martin gave the final rebuttal this morning and it was powerful. Even U.S. Attorney Jay E. Town was in the courtroom for the final discourse.

Kyle Whitimire of AL.com tweeted:

AUSA George Martin now up to give the second half of the government’s closing. He says he has 47 minutes and he’ll take half of that. (Jurors smile.)

Martin showing again Government’s Exhibit 1: A draft letter Gilbert had written and edited for Oliver Robinson to send to the AEMC, in which Gilbert added the words “as a state legislator.”

Martin: “This was bribery whether that word was used or not.” Argues that no sophisticated person like the defendants is going to use that word when giving a bribe.

Martin goes back to Essig’s closing, when Essig asked the jury, “Where is the bribe?” Martin puts the defendants’ contract with the Oliver Robinson Foundation on the screen and says “There it is.“

Martin argues that the defendants had a lot of public officials on their side, but no one from the area affected by the Superfund. They couldn’t get support from Terri Sewell or William Bell. They needed Oliver Robinson, Martin says.

Martin: “Mr. Essig called him (Robinson) a tax-cheat and a fraudster, but he left out one thing. He’s also a bribe-taker.” Martin now showing how the government corroborated Robinson’s testimony with emails and other documents showing the defendants’ words and actions.

Martin argues that Robinson had every reason to tell the truth on the stand because he was sitting next to the very judge who will sentence him to prison.

Martin now arguing that it doesn’t matter whether Oliver Robinson was getting money or not for them to have proven their case but Gilberts’ own notes show he knew.

Martin: “I don’t know if the EPA was right or wrong, and I don’t care, because this case is about bribery.” Martin argues that it doesn’t matter whether the EPA had overreached or not, only whether the defendants paid Robinson to help them.

Martin is again pointing out to a huge problem in Gilbert’s testimony. Gilbert told Drummond CEO Mike Tracy he had vetted Robinson deal for ethics law compliance, but records show he only checked after the meeting with Tracy. Martin: He lied to Tracy and he’s lying to you.

Martin now arguing that Roberson’s time as a lobbyist shows he knew what the rules were, he just didn’t want to obey them, and [Roberson] didn’t need the advice of counsel to know what he was doing was a bribe.

Martin now going over “reasonable doubt,” says that by the defense’s definition, there would never be a conviction anywhere.

Martin now talking about his dad, who was an American history teacher, who instilled in him a love for God and country. Says July 4 was a special day in his family. “I’ve been to every battlefield and every dead president’s house you can name.”

But this July 4 was different, Martin says. He was in his office because of this trial, when he looked out his window at the American flag flying over the Alabama Power building. That’s when he realized he had missed the big picture.

Similar posts from Lauren Walsh of ABC 33/40 who tweeted:

Prosecutor George Martin: What speaks loudly in this case is what you heard from this witness stand. What I say, what Asbill said, what Essig said, none of that is evidence. (Reminder: Asbill and Essig gave the defense closings)

Martin; Gilbert cannot run away from government exhibit #1, where he added “as a state legislator” to a letter Oliver Robinson was to submit.

Martin: The bribe is the contract. I wish it had been a bag of cash. It would have been easier to prove.

Martin: If this had been only a contract about community outreach, we would not have been here all these weeks…They asked him to do more.

Martin: They asked him to do more. They asked him to go to meetings and speak on their behalf, advancing Drummond’s interests. They also have Oliver Robinson something they didn’t give all these other officials. They gave him a contract.

Martin: We wanted to show you the defendants own words and actions prove their guilt. We also wanted to corroborate Oliver Robinson’s testimony before he even took the stand….We weren’t going to build our whole case on Robinson’s testimony. We know better than that.

Martin now speaks to notion that defendants didn’t know Oliver Robinson was getting money from his foundation: “He wanted to donate his time to this big powerful law firm. It just doesn’t make sense.”

Martin: This case is not about the EPA, whether it was right or wrong, or about whether Drummond was right or wrong. This case is about bribery.

Martin: Both of these defendants knew what they were doing was out of bounds. David Roberson very well knew the rules of what was in bounds and out of bounds. He’s trying to tell you it was because of advice of counsel he was relying on.

Martin: July 4, I was watching a flag and getting angry in thinking about what the defendants did. They trespassed on those citizens rights in North Birmingham to have their representative represent them and only them.

Martin: They bought an elected official who was supposed to do what’s right for the citizens of Birmingham. Oliver Robinson sold his office to that man and that man. (points to Gilbert and Roberson)

Martin: They were operating a shadow government where they buy a politician to work on their behalf. The defendants did pollute. They polluted our system by bribing Oliver Robinson to sing their song.

The jury has begun deliberating.

With the Alabama Media Group posting this morning a thorough and in depth profile of North Birmingham residents titled “We are a Forgotten Community,” the criminal bribery continued with closing arguments from Henry Asbill, defense attorney for David Roberson, the indicted Drummond executive.

Keeping to a united defense strategy, Asbill shredded bought-and-paid-for politician Oliver Robinson and dismissed the criminal charges asserting that Roberson was acting in “good faith” and just doing his job. Asbill also pointed out that Roberson relied on Balch’s legal advice.

Lauren Walsh of ABC 33/40 tweeted:

Asbill now stressing; “Evidence of good character (ALONE) may create reasonable doubt.” He has that on the screen right now with the word “ALONE” in red letters and caps.

Asbill: Character, good character, absolutely defines you as a human being. It’s not about your job, how much money you make, if you are rich or poor or where you live. What’s the essential core of your humanity? That’s the essential core of what character is about.

Asbill: My client is still employed at Drummond. The CEO said if he thought David Roberson was guilty, he would be gone in a new York minute.

Asbill now shows jury 13 “reasonable doubts”, including: -no agreement to bribe –Roberson relied on Balch’s advice that hiring OR Foundation was legal -Attorneys have a duty to advise clients of the law and no Balch or Drummond attorney told Roberson there was a problem

More of the “reasonable doubts”: -Roberson was transparent -Hiring ORF was for legitimate work -Payments made to OR Foundation not OR the individual -OR didn’t say he took a bribe in FBI interviews -good character – no financial interest or motive to commit the charged crimes

As we stated before the trial started, Roberson has a good chance of being acquitted.

We noted last month:

Although Roberson’s legal team lost their motion to bifurcate the case, the district judge wrote in his order:

But, as the Government notes, when [Gilbert and McKinney] testified before the grand jury neither codefendant could recall specific discussions with Roberson regarding the legality of the agreement with [Oliver] Robinson or about the decision to hire Robinson’s Foundation.

In addition, the judge wrote that “neither party has specifically identified any statements that ‘powerfully incriminate’ Roberson.”

Roberson and Drummond have argued they were given poor legal advice. The grand jury testimony shows they may have been given incomplete legal advice.

Prosecutors will give their final rebuttal shortly. We will have an update later as the jury deliberates.

Good morning! Today we will hear from indicted Drummond executive David Roberson’s defense team who will make closing arguments. Yesterday, Joel I. Gilbert’s defense attorney made a strong case against Oliver Robinson observers say, but will it be enough?

The question in some people’s mind is: Will Roberson’s team continue to shred Oliver Robinson or will they also separate themselves from Gilbert’s alleged unsavory and dishonest conduct? Will they argue that Balch provided bad legal advice that was not properly vetted by the firm?

The government will provide a closing rebuttal which could heavily focus on the details that cannot be blamed on or attributed to Oliver Robinson.

Then it will go to the jury to decide: vindication or conviction?

Is there an emoji for this?

Joel I. Gilbert’s defense attorney, Brandon Essig,  argued that the defendants could conceal the contract with bought-and-paid-for defendant Oliver Robinson as a First Amendment right.

Essig for the most part attempted to put Oliver Robinson and the Oliver Robinson Foundation on trial today, trying to shred Robinson’s credibility as a witness.

Covering the closing arguments by Gilbert’s defense attorney, Kyle Whitmire of AL.com tweets:

Essig now arguing that lack of disclosure is a First Amendment issue — that it was their right to hide Robinson’s contract with Balch and Drummond.

Essig calls Robinson the most business-friendly Democrat in Alabama, argues that he was the logical person for them to reach out to. Robinson hosted a gala for black business leaders, which Essig says he funneled money out of into his own pocket — a fraud on the sponsors.

Essig points out moment in Robinson’s testimony where he said he never gave defendants any reason to believe that he personally was taking money out of the Oliver Robinson Foundation. (A strong point for the defense.)

Essig now talking about the meeting Gilbert had with Balch government affairs lawyer Chad Pilcher in Dec 2014 — a meeting about ethics law compliance. Essig says the meeting is evidence that Gilbert was acting in good faith.

Essig says defendants weren’t co-conspirators of Oliver Robinson. Instead, they were victims of Oliver Robinson. Essig points out Robinson and Powe side plan to administer a settlement between polluters and EPA. “You can’t conspire with someone you don’t know is a crook.”

[We interject this commentary: Anyone can conspire with anyone; crooks or a nun can conspire with the mob or a law firm. Add an NDA and attorney-client privilege to seal the deal.]

The whole time Essig is speaking, he has two huge posterboards on easels. One [is] of the Oliver Robinson Foundation’s tax forms showing other companies paying into the foundation, and the other is of corporate logos of all the companies that sponsored ORF events.

Essig using the end of his closing to drop in as many times as he can that Gilbert has small children. Says that Gilbert had a lot going on in 2014/2015, including a one-year-old daughter at home.

Essig calls the United States government the most powerful human organization in the universe. Essig telling jurors they are peers of Joel Gilbert and that they should hold their government accountable.

The closing arguments conclude tomorrow with Roberson’s defense team followed by the government’s rebuttal.

Balch & Bingham partner Steven McKinney has been acquitted.

From Kyle Whitmire of AL.com:

There’s been a lot of activity. The judge has yet to rule on a Rule 29 motion for dismissal for defendant Steve McKinney. We shall see.

Jury’s back. Judge says, “Steven McKinney is no longer a part of this trial.” Judge tells the jury that his absence should not affect how they look at the other defendants. And now Roberson’s defense will begin.

What is a Rule 29 motion?

Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal. (a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

As we wrote,  Steven McKinney was a winner in Week 2 of the trial:

Steven McKinney: His defense attorney brilliantly separated him from Robinson and all the testimony by witnesses appear to have almost exclusively discussed Gilbert’s actions.

[Post Updated Below] Could it get any worse for indicted Balch & Bingham partner Joel I. Gilbert?

Kyle Whitmire of AL.com opines this morning about the not-believable testimony from Gilbert:

Like I said yesterday, Gilbert has staked his freedom to the argument that, when they paid the Oliver Robinson Foundation, they had no idea that Robinson was benefiting personally from that. This is a hell of the thing to ask the jury to believe, and yesterday a couple of jurors were smirking when they heard this argument. Emails and other docs don’t help the defense on this point.

Confirming the Great Rift we wrote about this morning, McKinney’s attorney questioned Gilbert and was “trying again to distance McKinney from anything Gilbert and Roberson did while showing that other people at @BalchBingham knew or had reason to know what was going on,” according to Whitmire

But it was indicted Drummond Executive David Roberson’s attorney, Hank Asbill, who exposed more not-believable testimony when he questioned Gilbert, as Whitmire tweets:

Regarding Robinson’s involvement, Asbill asks: Who at Balch was it being hidden from? A: No one. Q: Who at Drummond was it being hidden from? A: No one.

So are we to believe the contract, the involvement with, the payments to Oliver Robinson weren’t hidden at Balch?

Assistant U.S. Attorney George Martin strongly refuted in re-direct Gilbert’s testimony alleging the work by Oliver Robinson was not hidden, according to Whitmire:

Martin making it clear that, only after the grand jury subpoenaed Balch, did the firm release any documents showing its contract with the Oliver Robinson Foundation and who was paying for that.

Another exchange with Gilbert, tweeted by Whitmire, shows even more not-believable testimony:

Asbill and Gilbert now arguing that they didn’t tell people not to get their soil tested. (Rather, they told people they didn’t have to get their soil tested if the EPA showed up and then told them that it would destroy their property values.)

So in other words the co-conspirators did not allegedly suppress, discourage or disenfranchise poor blacks from getting their toxic property tested, but in reality just advised them they weren’t obligated to have their toxic property tested by the EPA, and  that testing would hurt their property values.

What weasel-wording!

For heaven’s sake, “educating” the community that EPA testing will hurt their property values appears to be discouragement, suppression on its face.

Gilbert’s defense rested before lunch. This is a case in which heartburn hits before the meal.

[Update: After lunch, Steven McKinney was acquitted under a Rule 29 motion. Read more about his acquittal here. Defendant David Roberson’s defense team provided character witnesses and then the defense rested. Roberson smartly did not take the stand.  Closing arguments tomorrow and the jury will deliberate starting Thursday.]

Good morning! Joel Gilbert, the indicted Balch & Bingham partner will be questioned this morning by the attorney for his former boss, Steven McKinney, the other indicted Balch partner whose legal team has claimed he was not involved in the bribery conspiracy.

Although McKinney’s attorney has repeatedly demonstrated in court that his client had no meetings or communications with Oliver Robinson and others, McKinney was carbon-copied on all communications.

Gilbert will most likely also be interrogated by indicted Drummond executive David Roberson’s legal counsel therafter.

The great rift between two Balch & Bingham partners and their former client may appear to some simply as each defendant trying to save their own hide; others view it as a circular firing squad and all are doomed.

We’ll have an update this afternoon.

The 13th day of the trial was bad luck for defendant Joel I. Gilbert, a Balch & Bingham-made millionaire, according to court testimony.

Having had weeks of horrible testimony against him, Gilbert had to testify on the stand.

After Gilbert laid out his autobiography, his defense lawyer threw him softballs questions in which Gilbert denied the bribery charges or even knowing that Oliver Robinson was being paid by his own foundation.

Assistant U.S. Attorney George Martin grilled, skewered, and then demolished Gilbert on the witness stand

The jury was at full attention.

Kyle Whitmire of AL.com tweeted the devastating exchange:

Martin on cross makes that point that there was no doubt that these payments to the Oliver Robinson Foundation were not charitable donations. Gilbert agrees.

Gilbert is sticking by his argument that he …believed Oliver Robinson wasn’t being paid as part of the contract between Balch and the Oliver Robinson Foundation.

Invoices show $5K/month going to “Program Leads.” Gilbert insists that the “OR” in his notes showing $5K going to “OR” meant the Oliver Robinson Foundation, not Oliver Robinson personally.

In emails, Gilbert asked Drummond how they wanted to “handle payment for Oliver? Need to get him paid …” Martin is attacking Gilbert’s insistence that he never knew Oliver Robinson was benefiting personally from their contract with Robinson’s foundation.

Martin asks Gilbert whether, when he spoke with Robinson — while billing Drummond $350/hr — he thought Robinson was doing it out of the goodness of his heart.

Gilbert says he was never aware that Robinson did any work for the foundation. Martin puts emails on the screen showing Gilbert giving directives to Robinson and talking about work Robinson was doing for them.

Martin puts up letter Gilbert wrote for Robinson to send to the Alabama Environmental Management Commission. Gilbert added the words “as a state legislator” to a previous draft, document notes show. Gilbert insists he didn’t know Robinson would represent himself as a lawmaker.

Martin now getting into the timeline: Robinson showed reluctance to speak to AEMC, then Drummond and Balch give him a contract and a check four days before the AEMC meeting, then Robinson speaks to the AEMC.

In a Feb. 2015 email, Gilbert says Balch’s engagement was with Robinson & Robinson Communications, but invoice came from Oliver Robinson Foundation, and Gilbert didn’t know which to write the check to. (Again undermines Gilbert argument he didn’t think OR himself was being paid.)

Martin now asking Gilbert why they scrubbed Oliver Robinson’s name from invoices to Drummond and AJE. Gilbert says it was Drummond’s idea. Gilbert agrees they were hiding it “in a general sense.”

John Archibald of AL.com tweets what appears to be the most damning exchanges:

Gilbert wrote letters for Shelby, Sessions, he said. For Mayor Tuck in Tarrant and resolutions for Jeffco and Tarrant. And more. Only elected official B/B had contract with was Oliver Robinson, he says.

Gilbert acknowledges he didn’t talk to his firm’s “ethics people” (Greg Butrus) until at least a year after he contracted Oliver Robinson. Didn’t tell the “ethics people” Robinson met with EPA and AEMC etc. etc.