WHERE WE STAND - Ready for Oral Argument November 21 at 9:30 AM

With the final exchange of briefs between the lawyers in USA v. Mark Ridley-Thomas over the past few weeks, oral argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is set for November 21.

Following months of filings, a three judge panel will hear and weigh the arguments of government prosecutors and appellate counsel. They will decide whether:

• prosecutors in the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) properly interpreted and followed the law;
• the district court judge erred in deciding critical issues of law in ways that prejudiced the trial outcome and denied MRT a fair trial; and
• the verdict in the case should be overturned or the case remanded back to the district court for a new trial. 

MRT is seeking outright reversal of the verdict.

Nothing in the exchange of briefs has altered our view. We are still left with doubts about the exercise and the selective use and abuse of prosecutorial power by the USAO and investigative objectivity of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 

We STILL stand by Dr. Mark Ridley-Thomas!

We stand by his decision to appeal the jury verdict.  We support his efforts to fight for his reputation and to prove his innocence,   particularly after witnessing the trial every single day and learning even more through the appellate process.  We knew they got the facts wrong.  Now in the appellate process we have learned they were wrong about the law.  

When the government indicted him three years ago this month, prosecutors claimed MRT used his power to steer lucrative contracts to the USC School of Social Work and to monetize his vote. In exchange, his son, Sebastian, allegedly received substantial benefits in the form of graduate school admission, tuition, a professorship and a $100,000 contribution to a community non-profit he was to lead. Dr. Ridley-Thomas did this to protect his brand, the government said. They accused MRT of breaking the law 19 times in the process. They boldly called him a liar, claimed that he monetized his office, engaged in a conspiracy and masterminded a shakedown.

The jury found MRT not guilty on 12 counts, including all the specific acts required to prove he sought the graduate school admission, tuition and paid professorship benefits for his son that were part of the “bribery” and “conspiracy” counts. Curiously, the government continues to mislead the public about both the verdict and the scale of criminal conduct. In other words they conveniently omit the acquitted conduct on 63% of the charges they brought in order to exaggerate claims of corruption. 

At trial we witnessed how the government used their power and privilege to prosecute Mark Ridley-Thomas on the strength of:

• imaginary “winks and nods” and ridiculous interpretation of emojis;
• vague references to “optics”;
• selective interviews of witnesses that confirmed pre-existing biases;
• incomplete review of relevant evidence; 
• omission of salient facts; and
• deliberate propagation of disinformation and perpetuation of stereotypes.

Investigators showed unusual deference to USC. They spoke to no contract managers and no Board of Supervisors’ staff. They subpoenaed no County records. Prosecutors called no County witnesses. No more than one contract related to the case was introduced. It was an extension of an existing 2016 contract to provide remote mental health services for people in need. MRT supported the original 2016 contract. No one was pressured to support the extension. Its execution followed the normal County process. It was negotiated by the Department of Mental Health (DMH), not MRT or his office.  It was reviewed by contract managers in the DMH and County Counsel. It was passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors without comment on a consent calendar. At sentencing, not a single citizen/taxpayer offered a victim statement. Not even USC.

In the appeal briefings, the USAO attempted to re-write the trial record by running away from their theory of the case that the value of the “bribe” MRT allegedly accepted was “nepotistic optics” and “reputational harm” and instead was the lawful $100,000 donation to USC, even though it came from a ballot committee he controlled and neither he nor his son, Sebastian, received any personal enrichment and was reported in compliance with State law. In other words, it was all legal.

The supplemental briefing demanded by the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the US Supreme Court ruling in Snyder handed down in July in the midst of the appeal’s briefing schedule further reinforces our position:  the trial verdict cannot stand. It must be reversed. 

We will be at the Pasadena Federal Courthouse on November 21, 2024 at 9:30 AM to stand by and with Dr. Mark Ridley-Thomas.  By doing so, we stand up for what is right, true and just.