Andrew Levchuk of the US Department of Justice stood up and shambled over to the podium. Just before the jury filed in, the defense attorneys had made a last-minute objection to the poster Levchuk planned to show in his opening statement, so the judge disallowed it. Here’s my summary of what he said instead.
The story you will hear in this courtroom is a story of a conspiracy.
A line has been crossed here, the line that separates old-fashioned, hard-knuckle politics from crime.
What is the crime?
On election day in 2002, there were important races to be decided. People came to the polls to choose a Senator–a Representative–a Governor. This kind of election is very important–it is the Superbowl, if I can use a sports analogy. People involved in politics have spent weeks, months, even years working for this event.
You will hear in the courtroom about one political party, and about another political party. This trial is not about which political party is which, and you as jurors have sworn to give fair consideration to the evidence. When an election comes, both parties want to get their core voters to the polls. One way to do this is giving rides to the polls. Telephones are key to this activity.
The malicious idea at the center of this crime came from Chuck McGee. He was a political activist and a true believer. His aggressiveness was a great strength and also his downfall.
Chuck McGee got a campaign flyer from Democrats, offering rides to the polls, giving a phone number. Chuck McGee had a military background. Considering the Democrats as “the enemy,” he had the idea to disrupt their communications by disrupting their phone systems. He contacted several telemarketers about this idea. Nobody would touch this. This idea should then have died the death it deserved.
But, enter James Tobin. Instead of discouraging McGee, he connects him to telemarketer Allen Raymond.
Tobin doesn’t stop there. He phones Raymond and asks him to help McGee. Now, McGee and Raymond are not on the same level as Tobin, an important official on the national level. To each of them, Tobin’s endorsement of this scheme seems like an approval from “on high.”
Without James Tobin, this scheme does not happen.
On the morning of election day, this scheme results in two hours of nonstop hangup calls to Democratic headquarters around the state and to the Manchester Firefighters’ Union, which had a nonpartisan get-out-the-vote effort. After two hours, the calls were stopped. Even so, the plan had been for the calls to go on all day.
I’m giving you just a roadmap of the case we will be presenting. The indictment* lists two counts of conspiracy, an agreement to break the law–first for violating people’s right to vote, and second for interstate harassing phone calls. The indictment also lists two charges of aiding and abetting, based on two different federal laws broken by these interstate phone calls–one count for anonymous calls, the other for repeated or continuous calls made with the intent to harass the recipients.
An opening statement like this is not evidence. But it is the roadmap of what we intend to prove with evidence. How will we prove this?
We will prove this with witnesses. In the case of McGee and Raymond, these witnesses have made plea bargains. You will want to look for corroboration. We will also prove this with documents.
In conclusion–the 30 minutes I have been speaking with you is only one quarter the length of the telephone barrage that is the focus of this trial.
* Indictment against James Tobin pdf May 18,2005.
Next installment: Opening statement by the defense for James Tobin.