THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, January 12, 1995 TAG: 9501120409
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ELIZABETH THIEL, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: VIRGINIA BEACH LENGTH: Long : 105 lines
A Circuit Court jury Wednesday found School Board member Charles W. Vincent guilty of nine misdemeanor counts of violating state ethics codes.
The jury recommended that Vincent be required to pay $1,800 in fines - $200 for each count.
But Judge Thomas S. Shadrick delayed making the verdict final until next month, giving attorneys a chance to argue a legal fine point concerning whether Vincent willfully broke the law when he asked for campaign contributions last fall from businesses that were in the process of seeking school building contracts.
Vincent's attorney, Andrew Sacks, has until Feb. 1 to file a brief arguing that his client never meant to violate the Ethics in Public Contracting Act. Under the act, public officials in charge of awarding public contracts may not accept gifts from the businesses with which they deal.
The prosecutor, Commonwealth's Attorney Robert Humphreys, then would have 10 days to respond. Shadrick is scheduled to make a ruling in court on Feb. 22.
Humphreys said he was not disappointed by the delay.
``It's an issue that obviously the judge has some concern about,'' he said. ``The jury has spoken, but there's still a matter of what the law says.''
Sacks said he had hoped the jury would ``see it our way. They didn't. But that doesn't mean their verdict was correct.
``The question that still must be decided goes to the very heart of guilt or innocence.''
If Vincent's conviction stands, Shadrick can accept the jury's recommendation for fines or impose his own sentence, although the punishment cannot be harsher than what the jury suggested. The jury could have recommended up to nine years in jail and $22,500 in fines, under state law.
If Shadrick throws out the jury's verdict, the 46-year-old Vincent will be allowed to keep his seat on the 11-member School Board.
A guilty verdict, however, could launch a legal battle over Vincent's seat, which he won in an election in May. Government officials convicted of violating the state's Ethics in Public Contracting Act are required to vacate their offices.
The commonwealth's attorney's office is required to enforce the rule after the court's verdict becomes final, Humphreys said.
But Sacks said he intends to file an appeal if the guilty verdict stands.
In that case, Humphreys said, there is a question whether Vincent could remain on the board in the meantime. That issue probably would be decided in Circuit Court.
Humphreys said he would argue that Vincent should leave office before the end of an appeal, which could take two years or longer. Vincent's term will expire in a little less than four years.
``I'm of the position that when the conviction becomes final. . . the seat is vacant,'' Humphreys said.
The issue is particularly cloudy because no precedent exists, Humphreys said. No other public official in the state has been prosecuted under the law that Vincent is accused of breaking, he said.
When charged in October, Vincent became the first seated elected official in city history to be indicted.
``We're plowing new ground here,'' Humphreys said.
If Vincent is forced to leave his seat, the circuit judges would set a date for a special election and appoint a replacement for the interim.
The jury's finding Wednesday concluded two days of an unusual trial, during which Sacks made a surprise decision neither to call witnesses nor have his client testify.
The legal issues in the case came down to a single question of whether Vincent knew about the law, yet intentionally broke it, when he wrote letters to nine architecture and engineering firms he had helped nominate for school building contracts. He asked them to give him money to retire about $4,600 in debt from his spring campaign for the School Board.
Representatives of most of the firms testified that they either ignored or threw away the letters. One donated $200, which Vincent returned after his indictment. At least one firm reported the letters to authorities.
Sacks argued that his client was a newcomer to public office who did not realize he was breaking the law, and so did not commit a crime.
``The prosecution has failed in its task. They have failed to prove that he is anything more than misguided,'' Sacks told the jury.
``Common sense tells us that calculating criminals, with cold, calculating minds, do not send letters to people'' publicly, he said. ``If Charles Vincent were corrupt, he would be calling them, asking to take them to lunch. . . not sending letters for everyone to see.''
But Humphreys argued that Vincent had ample opportunity to know about the law he was accused of breaking.
Humphreys called witnesses who testified that Vincent was given copies of a manual listing School Board policies and pertinent state laws, including ethics provisions.
Humphreys said he was not required to prove that Vincent read the policies or understood them.
``Essentially, the defense in this case is that `I'm too stupid to be a criminal,'Humphreys said.
Vincent is ``one of the top 11 people in the school system. He can make things comfortable or uncomfortable for the contractors involved, and that is exactly the reason this statute covers people like him,'' the prosecutor said.
``We want contracts awarded based on merit.'' ILLUSTRATION: Photo
Charles Vincent
KEYWORDS: VIRGINIA BEACH SCHOOL BOARD CONVICTION JURY TRIAL
VERDICT by CNB