Found guilty of bank fraud last spring, former University Trustee Bill Lane is inching his way along a long road of judicial appeals.
In the most recent installment of the appeals process, the defense filed a brief in response to the federal government's appeal of a U.S. District Court Judge's decision to overturn a guilty jury verdict. Judge James Ware set aside the jury verdict May 11, rendering Lane innocent for the time being.
Lane, 71, served on the Board of Trustees from 1983-1994. He retired from the board on July 1, in accordance with a University bylaw requiring trustees to retire at age 70.
Lane, along with Robert Hopkins, Blynn Shideler, Thomas Oliver, and Robert Bonner, allegedly defrauded a Texas savings and loan as part of Hopkins' scheme to obtain personal control of a string of California banks. In a trial for the five men, a jury returned five guilty verdicts on individual counts of bank fraud on April 14.
The defense responded to the jury verdict by making a motion for acquittal. Although Ware denied the motion, he did grant the five businessmen new, separate trials, claiming "the defendants suffered an unfair prejudice and were denied a fair trial."
The government appealed Ware's decision, filing its opening brief on August 24. In it, the government argued that "the district court abused its discretion in granting motions for a new trial."
The most recent brief, filed by the defense, is a response to the government. Each defendant's attorney filed individual briefs, arguing why the government's claims are unjustified.
In a 22-page document, Susan Illston, a University alumna and Lane's attorney, along with Allan Ruby, Bonner's attorney, articulated three main contentions:
the government has the burden of proving that the district court egregiously abused its discretion in overturning the jury's verdict. The defense argues that prosecutors failed to accomplish this end;
New, separate trials were "properly ordered in the interests of justice." The government argues in their opening brief that Judge Ware mistakenly concluded that the jury heard inadmissible evidence. In its response, the defense contends that the court did not base its decision for new trials on this premise, nor should the appellate court be concerned with this question. Rather, the jury had an undue burden because of the unduly confusing nature of the trial;
the court's decision to separate the men for their future trials should not be in question before the court of appeals. Illston said in an interview Thursday that if Ware's decision is upheld, the government can then make a motion to join any number of the businessmen into any number of new trials.
Richard Seeborg, co-prosecutor for the case and an assistant district attorney in San Jose, CalIf. said that the jury should not have been confused by the influx of evidence. He said that in all cases, Ware gave the jury proper instructions as to what evidence to consider and, as a result, the jury never questioned the court as to what its decision should be based on.
"There is nothing the court can point to [showing] that these are improper verdicts," Seeborg said.
The defense's response, however, argues that because the case changed dramatically when charges of conspiracy were dropped, the jury had an undue burden and, as a result, returned an unfair verdict based on a plethora of extraneous evidence.
"You had to be there to appreciate the impact," Illston said. "They didn't have an iota of evidence on Bill Lane."
Seeborg said that in any trial there will be more evidence against some than against others. "It doesn't mean that there wasn't sufficient evidence for [Lane]."
The government continues to contend that the five businessmen should be joined in a single trial. Seeborg said that because similar witnesses would be needed for each individual trial, it would be a gross misuse of judicial resources to hold five separate ones.
Illston said that the government continues to argue along these grounds because, if five new trials are held, they would likely present a case similar to their original one. "[Seeborg] won't get convictions unless they're together," she said.
Illston contended that the new, separate trials would be far more narrow in scope. "By having them together, you kind of make something that wasn't there to begin with," she said, citing the numerous pieces of evidence that were admitted that had little to do with Lane and yet were considered by the jury.
Seeborg, however, said that in each case, the bank fraud charges involve two people, namely Hopkins and each of the other defendants. Thus, evidence that applied to Hopkins but seemed extraneous to others was, in fact, relevant, he said.
The government has until Oct. 31 to file its final brief. The court will then likely schedule oral arguments for the two sides. If the government wins its appeal, the defense can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which Illston said is a distinct possibility. Otherwise, the five businessmen would await sentencing. Lane would face a maximum of five years in jail and $250,000 in fines.
If Ware's decision is upheld, the five men would face new, separate trials at a currently undetermined time.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.