United States of America v Mark Ridley-Thomas: DAILY TRIAL UPDATES

CD10 Voices

Apr 30, 2023 • 21 min read

What follows is a daily summary of Mark Ridley-Thomas’ federal trial. It provides a distillation of trial highlights, makes minimal observations and attempts to capture the flavor of each trial day.

DAY ONE

First Day of Trial began with a flurry of motions and objections regarding a juror which were quickly dispatched. The jury was called in and the judge provided 25 minutes of instructions.
The prosecution laid out its case over a 30-minute presentation that centered around allegations of power, privilege and lies. They accused Mark Ridley-Thomas (MRT) of trying to monetize his office and use an alleged sexual harassment scandal of then-Assembly Member Sebastian Ridley-Thomas (SRT) as the basis for MRT’s actions. Most of the prosecution’s opening relied on supposition. For example, they referred to “winks and nods” by MRT (he tends to use emojis in his emails) that became “pushes and shoves.”
Defense opening lasted 45 minutes and meticulously laid out a counter narrative and response to the prosecution’s questions about MRT “selling his vote.” Defense counsel made clear that the prosecutor’s allegations did not happen. Nothing in the Prosecution’s opening statements was illegal according to defense counsel. The $100,000 contribution of campaign (ballot committee) funds, the SRT non-tenure, practitioner professorship at USC and his admission to USC were all legal and done in good faith.
Defense counsel underscored MRT’s passion for assisting the community, which is highly underserved and has poor levels of health access, education, and a high rate of incarceration and poverty. Throughout defense counsel’s presentation, she made clear that the relationship between MRT and Dean Flynn was longstanding and preexisted any discussion of MRT’s son. Defense counsel established a distinction between USC rules and the “alleged” crimes raised by the prosecution and made clear that breaking any USC rules is not a federal crime but is instead a USC issue.
Two of the prosecution’s11 witnesses were called to the stand.
The most impactful documents are the Judge’s orders on motions to exclude pieces of evidence, exhibits and statements. The Judge denied the Prosecution’s motion to exclude Good Acts evidence, allowing the defense to demonstrate MRT had previously supported the projects prior to any discussion regarding his son. The Judge denied another motion by the Prosecution, allowing the defense to question why any bribery would have occurred in light of the pre-existing relationship with Dr. Flynn and Telehealth contract services provided by USC were already being delivered under the pilot program.

DAY TWO

The day began as yesterday ended, with Dr. John Clapp on the witness stand speaking about the Telehealth contract with the County of Los Angeles. The Prosecution spent an inordinate amount of time repeating the same questions about the Telehealth contract. Upon cross examination, it was revealed that the Telehealth contract was not the smoking gun the Prosecution originally made the document out to be. Instead, the contract revealed that the county payments could not exceed $547,500 during a 5-year period, not the $8 million per year as Clapp previously testified.
The Defense spent their time debunking a number of comments made by Clapp during his testimony, including whether an exception had been sought through the University’s Provost office to allow SRT to be a non-tenured practitioner professor and a student at the same time. Furthermore, USC’s offer letter of professorship to SRT was approved and signed by both deans of the Dworak-Peck School of Public Policy and the Price School of Social Work.
Interestingly, another prosecution withness, Dr. Nichol (a USC School of Public Policy professor), outlined USC’s “executive background check” which delayed the onboarding of SRT by approximately three weeks. The executive background check, the most rigorous background check available, found no red flags and SRT was provided an offer letter and onboarded shortly after.
Under cross examination, Dr. Nichol agreed that at the time of his hiring, SRT was qualified for his position at the Price School of Public Policy, that he had learned as early as June 2017, SRT was interested in a faculty position. Nichol added that in October 2017, he learned about SRT enrolling in the MPA program and his desire to be considered for a faculty position at the School of Public Policy.
Dr. Nichol testified that at the time of his employment offer, SRT would have been an incredible asset to the school as he would bring diversity, legislative history and vast professional practice insight to the School of Public Policy.
Dr. Nichol admitted Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was hired as a Professor of Practice to the School of Public Policy in 2010 despite sexual harassment allegations, saying, “we had a lot of those.”
Dr. Nichol admitted the handbook allows for professorship and enrollment as a graduate student so long as permission is granted by the Provost or the Provost committee. When asked about seeking Provost approval, Dr. Nichol admitted, “I dropped the ball” by failing to obtain the requisite approval.
If today was someone’s first day in the courtroom, you would think you were in the wrong place, as most of Prosecution’s dialogue centered around SRT, not his father, MRT. The Prosecution focused the majority of their arguments on SRT’s biography, his application, his employment, his previous posts, and the California State Assembly investigation into allegations of sexual harassment.

DAY THREE

The day began with the continuation of Dr. Nichol’s redirected testimony. The defense pushed the Professor on his relationship with SRT during his professorship at the School of Public Policy. Dr. Nichol admitted he never met with SRT during his employment and was unaware of the nature of SRT’s work at the time.
After further questioning by the Defense, Dr. Nichol revealed that he did not know the context of any phone conversations between MRT and Dean Flynn of the School of Social Work, admitting those conversations could have revolved around homeless initiatives within the City. Furthermore, Nichol admitted he was not aware of the $100,000 donation made by MRT or its context besides what Prosecutors showed him. In short, Dr. Nichol was not helpful to the Prosecution’s case.
The second witness, Sheri Dunn Berry, began her testimony today. She was the former Director of Projects for Community Partners, the fiscal sponsor of an African American-focused public policy think tank that needed financial support to conduct its work during the 2018 election cycle. She testified about a $100,000 contribution MRT was attempting to make to CP for the benefit of the African American Civic Engagement Project (AACEP). Throughout her remarks she reiterated that any donation made by MRT’s ballot committee was not illegal, nor was the potential employment of his son, SRT. However, she was concerned about the “optics” of hiring SRT and whether the $100,000 donation was appropriate.
Paul Vandeventer, the former president and CEO of Community Partners, was subpoenaed by the Prosecution (and the Defense). Under examination, he was little to no help to the Prosecution revealing the $100,000 to Community Partners was legal and that there was nothing odd or curious about the donation. Communities Partners sought legal counsel to ensure there were no legality issues with both the donation and the potential employment of SRT. He stated the money was not specifically donated to be used only as compensation, but the money was to be used for revitalizing AACEP.
The Prosecution questioned Vandeventer if he was hesitant to consider Sebastian for a project leadership position (AAECP) at Community Partners. Vandeventer fiercely denied the statement, testifying he thought the hiring of SRT was a “pretty good idea” and that the former Assembly Member was “highly qualified given his history in the state legislature and his ability to engage the community.”

DAY FOUR

(CD10Voices Editor’s Note: Through-out the investigation, government prosecutors gave unusual deference to USC and its Board of Trustees Chairman, Rick Caruso. The Defense succeeded in getting a letter introduced into evidence that provides context for how developments unfolded. Context matters. At the time, it was widely believed that BOTH Caruso and MRT would be candidates for mayor. So, Caruso had a motive for soliciting USAO review of what appeared to be violations of internal USC policies.)

Quote displayed from an August 2018 letter sent by USC to the USAO’s office: “I want to inform you about a disturbing and concerning situation. In July, I learned of alleged inappropriate financial transactions and agreements involving Marilyn Flynn and an elected official.”

And ends with:

"We are steadfast in the determination to not tolerate unethical behavior and people will be held accountable."

It also states this information is what prompted an internal investigation and announces the investigation by the US Attorney’s office.

This week’s proceedings began with the testimony of Dr. Michelle Guzman, previously known as Dr. Michelle Clark, who acted as the Program Administrator for USC’s Peck School of Social Work. The Prosecution attempted to establish that there was a quid pro quo, that SRT received special treatment and was not qualified for his professorship, and that MRT’s office was fully engaged in the effort to get his son hired in exchange for a one year extension and amendments to a County contract with the Dworak-Peck School of Social Work for a pilot Telehealth mental services program.
Dr. Guzman testified that in 2017 there were concerns regarding the Dworak-Peck School of Social Work’s drop in ranking out of the top 10 national programs and the School’s decreased enrollment. Dean Flynn was concerned by the resulting financial impact on the Dworak-Peck School of Social Work.
Dr. Guzman testified that Dean Flynn was highly regarded within the world of social work for her innovative ideas and for expanding the concept of social work beyond child welfare. Both Telehealth services, the re-entry center and “Probation University” were ideas that she saw as imperative for the Dworak-Peck School of Social Work’s ranking, financial success and overall future. The Board of Supervisors voted on a motion written by MRT and Sheila Kuehl regarding the creation of Probation University in partnership with the Dworak-Peck School of Social Work at USC.
Upon cross examination, Defense published evidence revealing MRT had long been involved in the creation of a re-entry center for recent parolees and establishing a center near USC’s campus for several years. USC campus security initially raised safety concerns about the re-entry center’s location back in August of 2014, stating in an email, “MRT should help us.” On August 6th, 2014, a new location was recommended on Vermont Street. Dr. Guzman admitted she was unaware of the request for MRT’s help or that the location had previously been discussed two years prior to her employment in 2016.
Dr. Guzman established that sponsorships such as the one the Dean made to the Policy, Research and Practice Initiative (PRPI) made by the Dworak-Peck School of Social Work were customary and not unusual. She acted as the point person for strategic initiatives for the School of Social Work and had worked with SRT during his professorship to establish and expand his PRPI initiative. These actions included granting SRT office space in the USC City Center on the School of Social Work’s floor. Another initiative Sebastian was working at the time, United Ways, was also located in the building.
Previous statements made by Guzman in her interviews with the Prosecution revealed she felt overworked and her previous actions had caused some disappointment for Dean Flynn. She no longer works at the Dworak-Peck School of Social Work or for the University of Southern California.
The day concluded with Juror #1 being dismissed due to school obligations he failed to disclose during jury selection. He will be replaced with an alternate, Juror #13.

DAY FIVE

Today’s proceeding was dominated by the Prosecution interviewing FBI Special Agent Brian Adkins of the Public Corruption Squad.
The Prosecution set out to prove its case two different ways with Agent Adkins. First, the lead attorney focused on the case’s broader subject matter. Second, the lead prosecutor concentrated, in exhaustive detail, on a 2017 to 2018 timeline, where the government attempted to link all events regarding MRT, SRT, USC, the United Ways contribution and the County of Los Angeles Telehealth contract amendment. At one point during the timeline review, Judge Fischer asked the Prosecution to “move their case along” as a significant portion of the day focused on minute and highly repetitive details, predominantly emails between various parties the prosecution contends support their theory of the case: that MRT exchanged public resources for the financial benefit of his son in an effort to obscure the reason for SRT’s resignation from the legislature on December 31, 2017.
Throughout the day, the Prosecution focused on subpoenaed email and phone records, between MRT and Dean Flynn, MRT and SRT, MRT and SRT’s team, MRT and his office staff, and MRT and County officials, Dean Flynn and her staff, Dean Flynn and SRT, Dean Flynn and County officials. In sum, it was a barrage of detailed data that attempted to associate individual actions by the defendant with reactions by Dean Flynn and others in support of the conspiracy and bribery charges. The prosecution also introduced evidence from subpoenaed email, phone and health records for SRT.
The Prosecution’s focus on SRT’s resignation concentrated on largely circumstantial evidence related to an Assembly Rules Committee investigation into sexual harassment claims against SRT. They argue that SRT’s interest in an academic appointment at USC was simply a cover for his resignation and that MRT was engineering a public relations effort designed to shield the RT brand from adverse publicity while simultaneously addressing SRT’s sudden loss of income and health benefits. These efforts coincided with USC and County negotiations about greater School of Social Work involvement in the Departments of Children and Family Services (DCFS), Mental Health (DMH) and Probation.
In a bit of a surprise, the Prosecution moved the FBI witness up in order of testimony to this day. He was originally asked to speak as the last witness. This move can be interpreted in at least two ways: 1.) the Prosecution has lost the jury and calling the FBI to the stand is an attempt at regaining their footing; and/or 2.) the Prosecution was seeking to throw the Defense off balance by limiting preparation time for what I likely to be a robust cross-examination, expected tomorrow.

DAY SIX

This morning’s session concluded FBI Special Agent Adkins initial testimony by the Prosecution. The Prosecution’s lead attorney continued her detailed examination, which also consumed the majority of yesterday, spending an hour finishing a 59-page timeline document which summarized email and phone communication between MRT, SRT, Dean Flynn and others.
At approximately 9:10 a.m., the Defense team began its cross examination of Special Agent Adkins. At times, lead Defense Counsel Daralyn Durie’s cross examination grew tense. While confident during the Prosecution’s testimony, Adkins was less so during cross examination. On multiple occasions, Adkins responded to Durie’s questions, “I do not recall,” or “Could you refresh my memory?” Durie very ably responded with both exhibits in evidence and US Attorney’s Office produced discovery documents, including transcripts and meeting summaries of FBI investigative interviews. In response to some of FBI Adkins’ vague and misleading answers, she regularly admonished, “That’s not the question I asked you.”
What became evident during cross examination was that the Prosecution wants to focus on a very limited timeline (mid-2016 to mid-2018) in an attempt to prove its case. Defense made the argument that policy issues involving mental health, probation, homelessness and other matters have been MRT priorities since well before 2016 – among them the origins of three contracts at issue: a.) the establishment of Probation University designed to enhance officer training and expertise on the range of multi-disciplinary challenges faced by disproportionate numbers of people of color in County Probation Department custody or under supervision; b.) the development of a one stop Probation “re-entry” center (one block from USC’s main University Park Campus) on Vermont Ave. and c.) a pilot Telehealth mental health contract staffed by graduate School of Social Work students under the supervision of professionally licensed managers directed at people who’ve experienced trauma, depression and anxiety.
The defense team went to considerable lengths to highlight and document MRT’s longtime support for Telehealth services, Probation University and the Vermont Ave. re-entry center. To do so, Defense counsel published emails from 2014 to 2016 and focused on documents previously interpreted as supporting the Prosecution’s case. The Defense also focused on information in the same materials that provided additional background and context or by introducing previously produced motions, Board letters and press releases. One example: MRT supported the County’s Telehealth program since its beginning as a concept that grew out of recommendations made in 2014 by the County’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protection — a Commission established by MRT’s motion — in 2013! The original contract was unanimously adopted in March of 2016.
When Durie asked Adkins about the origination of the County of Los Angeles’ Telehealth contract, Adkins confirmed that both Dean Flynn and MRT were on record as supporting Telehealth prior to the beginning of the alleged conspiracy. Defense counsel showed an early 2016 press release from MRT’s office where both the Supervisor and Flynn were quoted in support of the program.
With the groundwork undermining Adkins’ testimony thus laid by pointing out inconsistencies, contradictions, selective editing of email chains and incomplete knowledge or incompetent investigative techniques, Durie subtly introduced the concept of implicit bias. This line of questioning was very short but seemed to resonate with a jury comprised largely of people of color who skew toward youth (under 40). This topic will likely be revisited later. The jury visibly took note and appeared engaged.
The day concluded with Durie reviewing the FBI’s summary chronology of email and phone calls between MRT, Dean Flynn and others. Durie asked Adkins about a number of events or person-to-person contacts that were not included in the FBI’s summary timeline.
The trial resumes tomorrow with Adkins still under cross examination. He may be on the witness stand a few more hours with the government seeking to rehabilitate their star witness. It’s been said, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression.” Under the pressure of a rigorous cross examination, the Prosecution’s best witness came up short.

DAY SEVEN

The trial resumed today with the Defense concluding its cross examination of FBI Special Agent Adkins, followed by a rebuttal by the Prosecutor and rebuttal cross by the Defense. The Prosecutor went to great lengths in an effort to rehabilitate their star witness, referring to Special Agent Adkins as an “expert investigator” and “seasoned FBI agent investigating corruption.” His most recent assignment prior to coming to L.A. had been Chicago. The Defense team spent a significant amount of time continuing to undermine the credibility of the government’s case. They highlighted the absence of documentary evidence suggesting that the initiatives at the heart of the case — Probation University, the Vermont Ave. Re-entry Center and the Telehealth Contract extension — lacked overwhelming support or were inconsistent with prior advocacy. The Defense continued to point to discrepancies and omissions in the FBI’s summary timeline.
Most interesting, during a 15-minute rapid-fire question and answer session between Defense Counsel Durie, and Special Agent Adkins, the FBI agent was forced to admit multiple times that there was “nothing controversial” regarding the three policy initiatives. He uncovered no documentary evidence that anyone acted contrary to the normal processes for advancing these initiatives — neither MRT, Second District staff, other County Supervisors, their staffs, County department officials nor USC officials and advocates involved in establishing the Probation University, the Vermont Re-entry Center and the Telehealth contract extension. He also conceded that there was no evidence that Sebastian Ridley-Thomas was unqualified for admission to graduate school or to be appointed to a non-tenure track post as practitioner professor. There was no evidence that any campaign finance law was violated in making the $100,000 contribution to Community Partners (CP). The Defense also managed to introduce evidence that the same MRT committee that made the $100,000 contribution to CP previously and made a $250,000 contribution to Community Partners in 2016 without issue.
In its opening statement, the Prosecution’s said the basis for their case was the documentary evidence the government amassed — approximately 400,000 pages of documents. The Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that MRT sought to monetize his position by trading official acts in exchange for benefits to himself or a third party. The Defense exposed flaws in the Prosecution’s investigation that substantially weakened the Prosecution’s argument with devastating effect.
After Special Agent Adkins completed his testimony, two representatives from United Ways of California (UWCA) were called to the witness stand in succession. The first, Maryrose McMahon, the former Program Coordinator for UWCA, testified that she noticed nothing unusual about the $100,000 donation at the time of its receipt; however, following a review of an LA Times article about the contribution, she testified to have had misgivings about the contribution and would have raised questions internally about USC’s sponsorship. The significance of her testimony was that she was informed of the potential criminal investigation in a news article. The article was the result of the Federal government’s acquiescence to USC’s desire to make public its referral to the U.S. Department of Justice and the University’s subsequent cooperation in the investigation. This is contrary to the Justice Department’s normal posture not to discuss on-going investigations. It is interesting to note that USC’s Board of Trustees Chairperson at the time was mayoral aspirant Rick Caruso.
Special Agent Adkins had previously testified that the reason he never reached out to anyone in the Second District about these issues was that there was a need for secrecy in order to avoid compromising the investigation. In cross examination, this assertion was challenged as inconsistent with the FBI’s tacit approval of a USC pronouncement that would be ultimately publicized in the region’s biggest daily publication and read by members of the public, including prosecution witness McMahon, County employees, MRT and his Second District staff.
After McMahon, Peter Manzo, President and CEO of United Ways of California, took the stand. He reiterated many of the points made by Maryrose McMahon but covered very little new ground. Defense counsel did not even bother to cross-examine Manzo. The Prosecution declined to call any more witnesses.
Prior to the jury entering the courtroom, an interesting discussion occurred between the Prosecution and Defense counsel regarding “optics.” The Prosecution wanted to include a piece of evidence that they argued pointed to the “optics” of a situation (i.e., something that did not look good for MRT) and Defense counsel objected. The judge agreed. It was subsequently excluded from discussion. This ruling reinforced a central argument by the Defense in its opening because something may not look right, it does not mean it is illegal. For example, Special Agent Adkins, the government’s star witness, is the only witness who is permitted to hear the testimony of everyone who preceded him, because he is a member of the Prosecution’s team and sits at the table with the Assistant U.S. Attorneys. Because it may not look right doesn’t mean it’s illegal.
The Prosecution rested their case this afternoon after Manzo’s testimony. The Defense will present its case next Tuesday at 7:45 a.m.
Prior to resting their case, the Prosecution intended to call at least two more witnesses, including Dr. John Sherin, the Department of Mental Health Director at the time the Telehealth contract was extended. The failure by the Prosecution to call Dr. Sherin (OR ANYONE ELSE FROM THE COUNTY) can be interpreted in at least two ways. First, the government is satisfied that it has introduced sufficient evidence to persuade the twelve jurors that MRT corruptly exchanged support for the three county initiatives at issue for Sebastian Ridley-Thomas’ admission to graduate school, a scholarship, adjunct professorship and a donation to a non-profit policy think tank he would lead.
Or second, the Prosecution is cutting its losses by not risking more damaging testimony from any witnesses with detailed knowledge about LA County policy formulation. Such testimony would arguably undercut their theory of the case. It could further reveal the incompetence and shortcomings of an investigation riven with implicit bias that undergirds this indictment. Next week provides the opportunity for the Defense to make its case.

DAY EIGHT

Defense proceedings began this morning with a packed courtroom. The diverse audience of MRT supporters included Kurt Peterson, the head of Unite Here Local 11, John Semcken of Majestic Realty, and Cynthia McClain-Hill, the Department of Water and Power Commission President. There were four members of the clergy as well as childhood friends of the Councilman and numerous former members of his staff. The Defense called and heard from six witnesses the first day, 2/3rds of the total presented by the Prosecution in 7 days over two weeks.
Prior to the jury’s arrival, Judge Fischer began the day with an admonition regarding repetitive testimony. This observation was inconsistent with the Judge’s approach to witness testimony during the first three days of the Prosecution’s case.
Judge Fischer considered postponing the Defense’s first witness due to the Prosecution’s concerns with medical record exhibits. She ultimately allowed the witness to testify after a 15-minute delay, as some exhibits used to refresh his memory the Defense sought as evidence were ruled “Under Submission” pending her ruling. The effect was to lengthen SRT’s primary care provider’s testimony by having to refer to the documents repeatedly to refresh his recollection about symptoms, procedures and post operative care during his direct testimony.
The medical history of SRT was discussed as his primary physician, Dr. George Michel Mallouk testified first. SRT consulted his physician for both mental and physical health assistance. His medical testimony, though plodding, was crushing to the Prosecution’s contention that SRT was not experiencing substantial health concerns at the time of his resignation from the State Assembly. The medical records seemed to resonate with jurors as a multitude of medical conditions were discussed. The direct examination undermined the credibility of the Prosecution’s argument that SRT’s health issues were not serious.
After the Doctor’s testimony, the Defense called the first 2 county employees, Sachi Hamai, the former Chief Executive Officer of the County of Los Angeles, and Karly Katona, a longtime staff member of MRT. Both women shared their vast knowledge of county processes and the strict procedures and timeline each Supervisor’s office must follow to move motions and amendments forward before the Board. Karly Katona stated, “I’m not sure if there is an elected official who has accomplished more for his constituents than MRT.”
Katona also provided insight into a confidential letter written by Dean Marilyn Flynn of the Dworak-Peck School of Social Work at USC, a prominent piece of evidence for the Prosecution’s case. She testified that a confidential letter was not uncommon and the letter was “classic MRT” as the Supervisor “always wanted to know the details and demographics of any research committees to ensure that diversity was taken into consideration.” A later witness, a former USC employee under Dean Flynn, confirmed Katona’s understanding about the sensitivity of the demographic information that was provided, as it pertained to the work of another academic peer of Dean Flynn’s at the Peck School of Social Work.
The Judge requested the Prosecution’s cross examination of Defense witness’ Karly Katona be moved along stating, “this is boring.” Judge Fischer eventually terminated the Government’s cross examination after many sustained objections by the Defense to the Prosecution’s questions.
Greg Polk, the former Chief Deputy Director of the Department of Mental Health, testified that there was nothing controversial or extraordinary about the Telehealth contract’s simple extension and process of amendment.
The day ended with Dr. Michael Hochman’s testimony. He was MRT’s senior health deputy. The Harvard Medical School trained physician testified about the policy formulation process, MRT’s longstanding interest in innovative health care delivery to underserved communities and the opportunities Obamacare reforms presented to the County. He said there was nothing controversial about the Telehealth contract.

DAY NINE

The courtroom was packed this morning with enthusiastic MRT supporters that not only filled the courtroom to capacity, but also required an overflow courtroom where people could view the trial on closed circuit TV.
Prior to the jury being seated, Judge Fischer did not allow the prosecution to call a rebuttal witness, LA County Department of Mental Health, John Sherin. With that decision reached, the case proceeded to closing arguments. She then read the jury 20-plus pages of jury instructions that went into detail about the 19 charges against MRT.
The Prosecution began by making its closing arguments. The Government methodically went through its case again going into exhaustive details about email and phone conversations between Dean Marilyn Flynn, MRT, SRT, and county officials. The government did its best to “connect all the dots” in a complicated case. Using a PowerPoint presentation, the government repeatedly put a sign on screen that said, “Public Officials Do Not Get to Monetize Their Public Service.”
As the Government did in its opening arguments, the Prosecuting attorney again tried to summarize this case, saying that it was about “power, privilege and lies.”
In total, the Prosecution’s closing argument lasted roughly 90 minutes.
Following the Prosecution, MRT’s defense team, led by Durie, provided a much simpler explanation for why we are here today. She explained that FBI Special Agent Adkins appeared to have locked onto a conclusion about MRT’s guilt and these beliefs influenced his investigation and questioning, saying, “Once you decided someone is guilty, you stop asking those questions” – indicating that FBI Special Agent Adkins was not thorough in his investigations and reached a conclusion about the defendant that influenced the agent’s objectivity.
Durie continued by highlighting that this federal case was brought at the request of the University of Southern California. She added that the government interviewed no County of Los Angeles witnesses and made no attempt to understand the County’s processes and procedures when it came to legislation.
Toward the end of her closing argument, Durie made two poignant remarks. First, she said that “the government is actually the one with the power (to subpoena whomever) and privilege,” and indicated that the government has a responsibility to investigate correctly – insinuating that the government failed to do so in this case. Second, in her final remarks to the jurors, she urged the jurors to “return this man to his work, his home, his family and his community.”
The prosecution briefly returned to begin their final remarks. After speaking for 10 minutes, Judge Fischer indicated that the government would conclude tomorrow and the jury would get the case.

DAY TEN

The courtroom was packed this morning with enthusiastic MRT supporters that not only filled the courtroom to capacity, but also required an overflow courtroom where people could view the trial on closed circuit TV.
Prior to the jury being seated, Judge Fischer did not allow the prosecution to call a rebuttal witness, LA County Department of Mental Health, John Sherin. With that decision reached, the case proceeded to closing arguments. She then read the jury 20-plus pages of jury instructions that went into detail about the 19 charges against MRT.
The Prosecution began by making its closing arguments. The Government methodically went through its case again going into exhaustive details about email and phone conversations between Dean Marilyn Flynn, MRT, SRT, and county officials. The government did its best to “connect all the dots” in a complicated case. Using a PowerPoint presentation, the government repeatedly put a sign on screen that said, “Public Officials Do Not Get to Monetize Their Public Service.”
As the Government did in its opening arguments, the Prosecuting attorney again tried to summarize this case, saying that it was about “power, privilege, and lies.”
In total, the Prosecution’s closing argument lasted roughly 90 minutes.
Following the Prosecution, MRT’s defense team, led by Durie, provided a much simpler explanation for why we are here today. She explained that FBI Special Agent Adkins appeared to have locked onto a conclusion about MRT’s guilt and these beliefs influenced his investigation and questioning, saying, “Once you decided someone is guilty, you stop asking those questions” – indicating that FBI Special Agent Adkins was not thorough in his investigations and reached a conclusion about the defendant that influenced the agent’s objectivity.
Durie continued by highlighting that this federal case was brought at the request of the University of Southern California. She added that the government interviewed no County of Los Angeles witnesses and made no attempt to understand the County’s processes and procedures when it came to legislation.
Toward the end of her closing argument, Durie made two poignant remarks. First, she said that “the government is actually the one with the power (to subpoena whomever) and privilege,” and indicated that the government has a responsibility to investigate correctly – insinuating that the government failed to do so in this case. Second, in her final remarks to the jurors, she urged the jurors to “return this man to his work, his home, his family and his community.”
The prosecution briefly returned to begin their final remarks. After speaking for 10 minutes, Judge Fischer indicated that the government would conclude tomorrow and the jury would get the case.

DAY ELEVEN

The government resumed its concluding closing argument rebuttal after receiving an opportunity to further refine it overnight. The 97 minute long argument was a rehash of the previous day’s argument that repeated much of the narrative previously advanced.
The prosecution rested and the jury was given the case to deliberate the fate of Mark Ridley-Thomas.

# # #

Sign up for more like this.