Minneapolis Confidential

Dean Zimmermann Pushing Pods at MnDOT Workshop

2010-12-02T14:07:00.000-08:00

From Personal Rapid Transit Workshop 2010, A Summary Report (Aug. 18, 2010, PDF)

Former Minneapolis city council member Dean Zimmerman: People love their cars for three reasons: 1) It’s sitting there waiting for you when you’re ready to go; 2) It goes where you’re going; 3) It gets you out of the weather. Everything else about cars we love to hate … PRT satisfies those three elements and totally erases every other single reason you love to hate the automobile … So, if you build a transit system that mimics the reason why we take the automobile and takes out the things you don’t like, people will switch from the automobile to that system.In terms of cost, the legislature is willing to spend all kinds of costs to subsidize all these kinds of transportation. No one is dif-ferentiating between capital cost and operat-ing cost … Every single vendor in here will tell you if we build this system, it will pay back its cost with revenue. Light rail takes $10 million a year of public subsidy. The bus system, 25 percent paid for by users, and let’s not even go into the automobile, the most heavily subsidized transportation system. PRT is the only system mentioned that will pay for itself in terms of operating cost.

Not mentioned is the fact that Dean Zimmermann was convicted on 3 counts of bribery in 2006.

This San Jose Podcar conference newsletter also has a PRT map created by Zimmermann.

Click on the screenshot to make it bigger:

In addition to taking bribes, Dean Zimmermann tried to convince real estate developer and government witness Gary Carlson to invest $250,000 in PRT:

Last year, I videotaped Zimmermann protesting reality-based transit and promoting Personal Rapid Transit at a transportation forum. Zimmermann gave me a tortured explanation for accepting cash from FBI witness Gary Carlson and refused to sign a waiver for the FBI tapes shown at this trial:

Members of the LRT-hating/pod-promoting Citizens for Personal Rapid Transit (CPRT) also spread the nonsensical conspiracy theory that Zimmermann was framed:

Enough Already! Sign the Waiver! Release the Exhibits!

2010-02-26T13:53:00.000-08:00

Every now and then, somebody on the Mpls Issues will claim Zimmermann was framed or persecuted as posted Wednesday.

The debate continues:

The subject being discussed was the city council being in the pocket of monied interests and developers. The reason I specifically mentioned Johnson-Lee and Zimmerman is that there is have been some claims that the Greens on the city council have been no more populist or resistant to corporate influence than the DFLers and I didn't feel that the examples we have had show that.

As a person who most closely aligns with Libertarian Socialist political philosophy, they certainly haven't been as progressive or radical as I would like to see, but I suspect that any politician who was progressive or radical enough to make me happy would not represent their ward.

I included Zimmerman because, while he clearly screwed up (and paid for it), I believe that he represented his constituency far more than he represented corporate interests.

I say that even though I leaned towards Ken Avidor's perspectives regarding PRT (although with decidedly less vitriol on my part). I didn't feel that his conviction was relevant to the question at hand, but since its been brought up, one might suggest that the nature of the crimes he was convicted of support my adding his name to a list of those not in the pocket of monied interests or developers.

One example is the lack of a quid pro quo on the "accepting a gratuity" issue. Yes, accepting a gratuity from someone who has business in front of the city is (and should be!) illegal and Zimmerman shouldn't have taken an envelope of cash and especially not taken anything from someone with business in front of the city. However, while former CM Zimmerman was convicted of accepting and using money from a developer, the case also established that he did not vote in favor of that developer's interests.

Also, IIRC, wasn't one of the things he was charged for basically leaning on a business who wanted some sort of zoning change? My recollection was that he wanted them to supply materials for a retaining wall that would mitigate a negative aspect of their requested change and that he intended to do the labor himself. Yes, again, this is the wrong way to go about it - he should have taken the process of letting them know that unless the wall were part of their application, he wouldn't be able to vote for them when their appeal came up or something like that. It may have been the wrong way to go about it, it may have been illegal, and it may have been part of what landed him in jail, but it strikes me as the sort of action made by someone who cares about their constituency and neighborhood.

Anyway, it has been a while so I may be misremembering the details here, but these recollections are part of why I included Zimmerman in my list of examples of people who were not owned by developers or monied interests. It was not my intention to reopen discussions about the trail or conviction nor was I claiming him to be a paragon of integrity, but his conviction did not seem particularly relevant to the discussion at hand. Had he accepted money and then acted in that party's interest, it would be a different story.

Another opinion from former Senate candidate Michael Cavlan:

First of all, as the saying goes in political circles in Ireland

"Even the dogs in the street know"

That Dean Zimmermann was set up and was in fact one of the more honest and courageous members of the Minneapolis City Council . He sure as hell would not have rolled over on supporting Chief Dolan or RT Ryback. Like I said before, what happened to Dean was one of the more shameful moments in Minneapolis City Council history.

However, when we speak of Cam Gordon being courageous and principled, I will have to interject another perspective.

At the time of the Dean controversy, myself and others set up a meeting. We were discussing just how to deal with it. The meeting took place at Deans House on Clinton Ave. What I am about to talk about Dean Zimmerman or in fact Jenny probably do not know about because they were not present. At this meeting 15 people gathered. We talked about how to deal with it in the public. We decided to hold a Press Conference outside his house. The person chosen to speak on our behalf, in support of our friend, Dean Zimmermann was Farheen Hakeem.

However, there were three people who opposed it. They were Cam Gordon, Annie Young and Dave Burger. Cam and Annie had been decades long friends of Dean Zimmermannn. They said that their concern was that "it may affect 'my' campaign." None the less, the issue was decided consensus style with the majority agreeing to publicly supporting Dean.

I remember that a young lady present gave them all a good tongue lashing and pointed out that she was a Democrat but still supported Dean.

However, it was what happened then that really stank to high heaven, in my own humble opinion.

Apparently Dean's good friend Annie Young decided to call around and talk to any to discuss this further. However "fortunately" the only people she could get a hold of was Cam Gordon and Dave Burger. They decided, right there to create a new consensus. They cancelled the Press Conference that had been set up to give public support to their friend Dean Zimmermann. At a moment that he and the broader movement so desperately needed it.

I know about this because I was there.

So. like i said there are other perspectives on who has courage and integrity in the Minneapolis City Council.

And so it goes... on and on... year after year...

Urban Legend - Zimmermann "Absent-Minded and Somewhat Foggy"

2010-02-24T08:32:00.000-08:00

It's been four, long years and the urban legend of Zimmermann's political persecution continues on the Minneapolis Issues forum:

.... A man named Carlson was heard to brag in a local bar that he was the one who set up Dean Zimmermann deliberately. It was a one-shot deal--not repeated.

Zimmermann was not noted as the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but he was-- and is--noted for being absent-minded and somewhat foggy on details. Zimmermann also spent two years in federal prison, whereupon he has paid his debt to society. He also made restitution for his mistake, as per the terms of his sentence. The figures put forward were maybe $5,000.00, though it could have been less. Carlson got nothing from the city council in return for his money.

--snip--

Also at work during that time was the Republican Party's aim to break the DFL stronghold in Minnesota. Part of that skullduggery was to taint the DFL in Minneapolis. As we have observed during Nixon's administration and subsequently
seen in the national news, the GOP is not above misuse of various agencies of the federal government in order to gain and keep ascendency.

Here's audio of an Assistant U.S. Attorney describing what's in the Zimmermann trial exhibits to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals:

Too bad those tapes are not as available as the exhibits in the trial of Tom Petters... it would clear up a lot of misconceptions for the folks on the Mpls Issues forum.

Of course, Zimmermann could sign a waiver to release the exhibits - but he won't:

Dave Bicking and the The Enduring Legacy of Dean Zimmermann

2009-10-12T05:46:00.000-07:00

Over at the Mpls Issues, supporters of Ward 9 candidate Dave Bicking are posting stuff like this about his opponent:

I have never seen a smoking gun like Schiff-gate in Minneapolis politics. A developer basically describing how a council member shakes him down for campaign contributions.

If this were chess, it would be a clearly won endgame for the Bicking campaign right now. But alas, it is not a chess game. Lit must be dropped, and the word must be spread.

...and this...

Dean Zimmermann was convicted and sent to prison for "accepting a gratuity." He accepted a campaign contribution from someone who had a development issue in his ward. He went to prison even though he voted against the developer's issue when it came before the Council.

I certainly don't want Gary Schiff or Steve Minn to go to prison. But the way the FBI reads the law: any politician who accepts anything from someone having business before the City, no matter how they vote on a given issue, is accepting a "gratuity." As the Zimmermann case proves, there doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The fact that someone gives you something and has business pending before the City is all it took to put Dean behind bars for over a year....

Dean Zimmermann was busted for asking for under-the-table contributions and accepting a large amount of it in cash and that is NOT the same as elected officials asking for and accepting legal political contributions. Here is an audio file from Zimmermann's appeal hearing that explains exactly what Zimmermann did and why it was illegal:

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously against Zimmermann, That ruling was not contested by Zimmermann who served his sentence. In April I videotaped Zimmermann protesting LRT and promoting Personal Rapid Transit at a transportation forum. Zimmermann gave me a tortured explanation for accepting cash from FBI witness Gary Carlson and refused to sign a waiver for the FBI tapes shown at this trial:

Members of the LRT-hating/pod-promoting Citizens for Personal Rapid Transit (CPRT) also spread the nonsensical conspiracy theory that Zimmermann was framed:

According to the CPRT.org website, the CPRT meets at Dean Zimmermann's home every month.

Dave Bicking, like Zimmermann is a fierce opponent of reality-based transit and big supporter of the pods. This is from his son, Ian Bicking's website:

... Dave has followed PRT for some time and he knows quite a few of the people involved in CPRT. Dean Zimmerman, who is a Green City Council member in Minneapolis (neighboring ward) has been a strong proponent of PRT during his time in office (and like all the councilmembers, he's also up for reelection).

I get the impression there's conflict in the Green Party over this, as some see PRT as a dig on traditional mass transit like Light Rail. I'm personally very excited about PRT, as mass transit just doesn't work well. It's not even very good for the environment....

"mass transit just doesn't work well. It's not even very good for the environment".... WTF?

Has Bicking's positions on LRT and PRT have changed since 2005?

Does Bicking still believe what he wrote in this petition for Zimmermann?:

***In Support of Dean Zimmermann***

We, the undersigned, protest the investigation, conviction, and imprisonment of Dean Zimmermann. As he begins his 30 month sentence in federal prison, we stand in support of an honest man who has dedicated his life to helping others, both personally and politically.

We are convinced that Dean is innocent of the crime of bribery - a crime that requires intent. Dean has shown no signs of personal ambition; it is unthinkable that he would participate in corruption for personal gain. Indeed, his imprisonment is the result, not of corruption, but of his activism and his integrity. The FBI set-up is the culmination of over 40 years of FBI surveillance of Dean's political activities.

This was a set-up, in the most literal sense: The cash, the witness and his script, the cameras, and the locations were all provided by the FBI. Unlike someone truly soliciting a bribe, Dean never asked for nor expected the contributions in cash, nor did he ask that they be given to him directly. The FBI never showed that Dean did anything for Gary Carlson that he would not do for anyone else. The prosecution could not find one other business person nor developer who would testify that Dean had asked for money in exchange for a favorable vote for their business or project.

This is not the first time that the FBI has taken an interest in Dean.

Dean Zimmermann has had a long history of political activism. He opposed atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the 50s. He participated in the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, working on voter registration drives in Mississippi. He was an early opponent of the Vietnam War. He helped create the natural food coops in Minneapolis. As an elected member of the Minneapolis Park Board he promoted sustainable ecological practices. In his four years on the City Council, he worked on homelessness issues, for immigrant rights, for greater accountability to end police brutality, and continued his work for a better environment. As he puts it, his focus on the Council was "to make life easier for poor people, and to leave behind a planet that is fit for our great grandchildren to live on."

The FBI also has a long history, and it is a history of dirty deeds inopposition to all the causes that Dean has promoted. An FBI agent even remarked what a low FBI number Dean had, indicating that his file goes way back. The infamous COINTELPRO program was created to, in the FBI's own words, "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" dissident movements. In addition to keeping extensive files on activists including Dean, the FBI encouraged the selective prosecution of movement leaders, and worked covertly to incite violence and to split groups apart and pit one group against another. After Congressional investigations in the mid-70s, COINTELPRO was formally disbanded, but many of the activities continued, and the files were kept.

Recently, new tools such as the PATRIOT Act give the federal government even more power. Surely the FBI, overseen by torture defender Alberto Gonzales, is as determined as ever to repress dissent. The persecution of Dean Zimmermann can be seen as nothing less than a warning to any elected official who would dare repudiate the Bush administration's repressive agenda. Even as Republican leaders have engaged in demonstrated acts of corruption and violation of the public trust, the US Justice Department under Gonzales has gone after more non-Republican elected officials than any other in modern American history.

We will probably never fully know the motivations and circumstances thatled the FBI to set up a sting operation to try to entrap Dean. But if we think that Dean's case has anything to do with a sincere concern about ethics or municipal corruption, we have fallen into the trap set for us by the FBI. Ideally, investigation and prosecution should be a search for the truth. By their record of deception and distortion, the FBI has shown, its true intent.

A centerpiece of the FBI's case is the famous "money, money, money" quote. To obtain a search warrant, the FBI deliberately deceived the judge by depicting this as Dean's response to Gary Carlson at a "meeting in a restaurant". They did not reveal that this was a perfectly innocent quote, given the context that this "meeting" was one of Dean's many conversations during a large public fundraiser for his campaign. When they raided Dean's house, the FBI confiscated not just evidence, but nearly all of his campaign materials. His re-election campaign was crippled by this loss of mailing lists, phone numbers, address labels, etc., perhaps revealing their true intent.

Any credible news source would readily expose these injustices, but the corporate media has been complicit in deception that influences the public's view of this case. Even after the trial was over and the true facts were known, the Star Tribune printed the transcript of the conversation with the "money, money, money" quote without revealing that it occurred during a fundraiser.

Dean's unjust conviction and imprisonment will not negate the legacy of his decades of service. Like many true freedom fighters, Dean is paying a high price for his activism. Our hearts go out to him and his family., This hurts not only Dean, but all of us. It hurts the causes Dean works for, and it unfairly tarnishes the reputations of the groups he works with. The timing of the FBI investigation and raid also tampered with the democratic process. We miss Dean's leadership on the Minneapolis City Council.

We stand in support of all political prisoners including Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and the Cuban Five. Dean Zimmermann is a political prisoner and we appeal to other groups, national and international, to recognize him as such.

Dean has not asked for personal support; he asks only that we "continue the struggle". We will do that, while keeping in mind that part of that struggle is to defend our allies from persecution, and to support the right of activists to work without fear of retribution.

Dean says it best: "Speaking on behalf of the poor and oppressed and generations to come is not always popular, but it is necessary. It is my life's work. It is my work as a public official and it's work I intend to continue." Thank you, our friend, for your inspiration and for your life's work. We look forward to your continuation of that work, both in prison, and when you are able to rejoin us afterward.

If Bicking still believes that Zimmermann is innocent, I hope he would urge Zimmermann to sign the waiver to release the tapes shown at his trial to the media so voters can decide for themselves.

And when it comes to casting stones at candidates who have accepted donations from developers... (click to make bigger):

Dean Zimmermann Protests LRT and Promotes PRT in North Mpls

2009-06-06T19:08:00.000-07:00

I wasn't expecting to see Zimmermann today at a transportation meeting in North Minneapolis... but there he was in the audience dissing light rail and promoting the pods along with CPRT director Margaret Beegle . I asked Zimmermann a few questions.. listen:

UPDATE: Pods on Streetsblog.

Pod People Meet at the Scene of Zimmermann's Crime

2009-04-22T03:32:00.000-07:00

If you go to the Citizens for Personal Rapid Transit website (CPRT.org), you'll notice they had a meeting recently at 2200 Clinton Avenue South in Minneapolis, the home of convicted felon Gary Dean Zimmermann.

2200 Clinton is where Zimmermann was caught on video accepting a cash gratuity from government witness Gary Carlson on August 31st, 2005:

Carlson says they need to get Zimmermann elected, then hands him an envelope and says “that’s for getting us the zoning over there.” [This envelope contains $1000 in the form of 10 $100 bills, given to Carlson by the FBI.]

Jenny Heiser, Zimmermann’s wife, comes in and Carlson asks for a campaign t-shirt. Carlson has a discussion with Heiser about line-drying their t-shirts and Heiser exits.

Zimmermann tells Carlson, “this guy down here [in the 9th. ward] is running against Schiff, Dave Bicking…[Schiff is a?] significant obstacle, this’ll be in his ward. He [Bicking] could use a little promotion, he’s got an uphill battle, but he’s got no relation with Hamoudi and those guys,” even though he met with the Sabris. One of them [I don’t recall if it was Zimmermann or Carlson] mentions Sheila Delaney, a candidate Hamoudi [Sabri] and his friends promoted, who withdrew from the race.

Carlson then says he thinks there are three people running in Zimmermann’s ward. Zimmermann replies by saying the “other guy” [other than Lilligren] is a “straw man we put up so there’ll be a primary.” He says the campaign wanted to have a primary to see “where we stood.” [I believe he also said something about his whole campaign knowing about this “straw man,” James Gorham.]

...2200 Clinton was raided by the Feds:

After lunch the prosecution continued its questioning of Agent Bisswurm. In response to questioning, Bisswurm explained that repetitive portions of the tape we just heard had been edited out, but the full and unedited version was supplied to the defense. He said a federal search warrant of Zimmermann’s home at 2200 Clinton was served on September 8, 2005. He explained that money was indeed found in the desk drawer: $1200 cash in four envelopes (Exhibits 34-37). He said all $1200 was there, but there was no trace of the $5000 or the original $1000. Docherty asked him is any of the original $100 bills (other than the $1200 in four campaign envelopes) were found in the house, and he said no. He said Zimmermann was asked where the $1000 was and he replied “all over the place.”

The CPRT has no problem with law-breaking, having broken IRS law to help get Zimmermann elected in 2005.

Here's Margaret Beegle of the CPRT at the Living Green Expo last year:

Dean Zimmermann is Back and He's Boring...

2009-02-12T20:29:00.000-08:00

Mpls Issues had a notice about a "Community Discussion and Forum". One of the speakers was Dean Zimmermann:

Dean Zimmerman is a former Minneapolis City Council Member. A well known and respected member of the local progressive peace and justice communities, Dean is considered a hero by many people and has always been a champion of poor and oppressed people.

A very small group of people listened to Zimmermann drone on and on about stuff including, of course the pods:

AG Holder: "We Must Restore the Credibility of this Department"

2009-02-07T07:59:00.000-08:00

Attorney General Eric Holder Addresses the Department of Justice from White House on Vimeo.

Transcript:

"Remarks by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to Department of Justice Employees":

Good morning.

It’s a privilege to speak to you today, both as the new Attorney General and as your returning colleague. I am deeply honored to have the opportunity once again to work side-by-side with all of you here at the United States Department of Justice.

The Justice Department has aptly been described as the “crown jewel” of the federal government. It has attained this distinction not because of any laws or regulations, cases or controversies, buildings or equipment, but rather because of the quality, integrity, and dedication of the people who work tirelessly to carry out the Department’s vital mission. Simply stated, you – the employees of the United States Department of Justice – are the backbone, the heart, and the soul of this great agency.

The honor of serving in the Justice Department is very real – and so too is the responsibility that accompanies it. Citizens from across this nation look to us as the standard bearers of justice, fairness, and independence. At all times, and in all ways, we must demonstrate that we merit their confidence. We must fulfill our duties faithfully, and apply the law evenhandedly, without regard to politics, party or personal interest.

I owe much to you who serve in this Department today, and to those who served in years gone by:

When I was in the Public Integrity Section more than 30 years ago, it was you – or people just like you – who served as my mentors, my colleagues, and my friends.

When I was the United States Attorney in the District of Columbia, it was you – or people just like you – who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with me as we fought against violent crime, drug trafficking and corruption.

When I was Deputy Attorney General, it was you – or people just like you – who worked with me to protect our fellow citizens and the ideals upon which our country was founded.

And now that I am Attorney General, it is you – and precisely you – who will serve as the Department’s faithful troops as we engage in a daily battle for justice.

We have much work before us.

We must strengthen the activities of the federal government as we protect the people – the American people – from terrorism. Nothing we will do will be more important. We must use every available tactic to defeat our adversaries – and we must do so within the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. There is not a tension between the ideals that formed this nation and that which we must do to keep it safe.

We must restore the credibility of this Department, which has been so badly shaken by allegations of improper political interference. Law enforcement decisions and personnel actions must and they will be untainted by partisanship.

We must reinvigorate the traditional missions of the Department. Without letting our guard down in the fight against global terrorism, we must embrace the Department’s historic role in fighting crime, promoting civil rights, preserving the environment, ensuring fairness in the marketplace, and protecting the interests of all of our fellow citizens.

Our task will not be easy. Our days will be long and our challenges will be great. But I know that because of your professionalism, your integrity, and your hard work, we will succeed in our vital mission. And I pledge to you today that throughout the days and months ahead, I will work with you, I will listen to you, and I will learn from you as we go forward.

And so, my friends and colleagues of the United States Department of Justice, I say to you today – let’s roll up our sleeves, and let’s get down to work.

It’s good to be back.

Thank you.

Unsolved Crime - Vandalism of Congress Members' Homes and Garages

2009-01-23T21:49:00.000-08:00

Some possible clues HERE.

OSC: Rachel Paulose Retaliated Against John Marti

2008-12-03T15:30:00.000-08:00

Office of Special Counsel press release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. / December 3, 2008 - Today, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced the settlement of a prohibited personnel practice complaint filed by John Marti, an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the District of Minnesota. Mr. Marti previously served as the First Assistant United States Attorney (FAUSA) to the former U.S. Attorney, Rachel K. Paulose. He alleged that in April 2007, Ms. Paulose demoted him to a staff attorney position because he had reported to officials within the Department of Justice that she had mishandled classified material. OSC’s investigation showed that Ms. Paulose retaliated against Mr. Marti for making whistleblower disclosures in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act.

AUSA John Marti is part of the Fed team investigating Tom Petters.

Press release from United States Attorney’s Office District of Minnesota about Monday's 20-count Indictment of Thomas Joseph Petters for wire fraud, mail fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering:

This case is the result of an investigation conducted by the FBI; the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division; and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joe Dixon, John Docherty, John Marti, and Tim Rank.

That's a familiar name... John Docherty prosecuted former Mpls Councilman Dean Zimmermann in 2006.

Last I heard, John Docherty went to work at the The Hague to help with the war crimes trials.

Speaking of the Zimmermann trial... this is from the recent issue of MInnesota Law & Politics:

Minneapolis Teen Challenge Billboard

2008-11-26T14:41:00.000-08:00

MNTC Billboard on NIcollet Avenue, Downtown Minneapolis. Ironic phone # - "612-FREEDOM".

Think it has anything to do with THIS?

Marda Liggett Woodbury 1925-2008

2008-11-26T14:16:00.000-08:00

This is a post I've had sitting on my computer's desktop for months.

This blog started out documenting the the shady deals of former Minneapolis Councilman Dean Zimmermann who was indicted and convicted for corruption in 2006. It would be nice to think that the City of Lakes has rarely seen corruption of the sort that Zimmernann practiced, but that isn't the case... far from it. Minneapolis has a long history of corruption.

Most Minnesotans are not aware that corruption was so common here. A good introduction to the seamy side of Minneapolis history is a City Pages article from 1995 titled Minneapolis Confidential (no, it's a coincidence that this blog has the same name).

Linclon Steffens in his book Shame of the Cities wrote about corrupt Minneapolis Mayor Doc Ames.

Another excellent book about that period in Minneapolis history is Fred Friendly's Minnesota Rag, a book about the landmark Supreme Court case, Near vs Minnesota.

In Minnesota Rag, Friendly briefly mentions Walter Liggett, a reporter who dared to expose the rackets and graft in the Mill City and was machine-gunned to death in front of his wife and daughter.

Walter Liggett's daughter, Marda Ligettt Woodbury died in July of this year. The Star Tribune's James Shiffer wrote the following in the Strib's Whistleblower blog:

On the eighth of July, Marda Liggett Woodbury, a retired library director, died in California. She was 83. News of her death didn’t reach our newsroom until some time later, and I only heard about it this week.
I didn’t know Ms. Woodbury. I spoke to her only once, last year, when I called her after reading her book. But I found myself saddened, because she had been a living link, perhaps the last witness, to a terrible chapter in the history of Minneapolis.

Between 1934 and 1945, three journalists were murdered in Minneapolis. All of them were gunned down on the street in gangland-style slayings. No one was ever punished in their deaths of Howard Guilford, Walter Liggett and Arthur Kasherman. Over the years, the city salved its conscience by remembering these newspapermen as so scurrilous in their methods and reckless with their associations that they deserved what they got. In fact, each of them, with varying degrees of credibility, self-interest and skill, was attempting to expose the rampant corruption and gangster rule virtually ignored by the dailies, the predecessors of the newspaper I work for now. Guilford, Liggett and Kasherman were the bloggers of their day, attacked by the mainstream politicians and media alike.

In 1935, Marda Liggett Woodbury was 10 years old when she saw her father, Walter Liggett, shot to death behind the family’s apartment in Stevens Square. Liggett, editor of the Midwest American, was a vocal critic of Gov. Floyd B. Olson, whom he accused of tolerating corruption and betraying his radical principles. His daughter testified at the February 1936 trial of the notorious Minneapolis gangster charged in his death, Isadore “Kid Cann” Blumenfeld. That’s when her picture shown above was taken, her eyes glaring into the news photographer’s lens with a startling ferocity.

Blumenfeld was acquitted and went on to a long and mostly uninterrupted career in organized crime. Walter Liggett’s family moved away from Minnesota. Sixty years later, in 1998, the University of Minnesota Press published Marda Liggett Woodbury’s book, “Stopping the Presses: the Murder of Walter W. Liggett”. It makes a persuasive case that her father was assassinated because of his political beliefs and his willingness to speak out about them. It was the first step, and not the last, of historians re-evaluating the meaning of the three murders.

... it's a nice column and well worth reading.

Here is a video I made about Walter Liggett.

Jim Graham: "Welcome Home Dean"

2008-07-12T07:58:00.000-07:00

From the Mpls Issues List:

What I am pleased about is that Dean has paid his debt and is now relatively free. It might surprise some, but I am glad Dean Zimmermann is out of prison and back in Minneapolis. Even though his actions did real harm to my neighborhood during the time he was in the Council and became a little too "interested" in promoting the interests of what I, and many, considered "organized crime". Before that Dean contributed a lot to our community in my opinion.

Dean was always a good guy and genuine person before becoming what I consider a pawn and victim of a certain family of "developers". That family has clearly, in my opinion, been the downfall of two City Council-Members -Dean Zimmermann and Brian Herron, but could have been responsible for a couple more.

Dean was weak and totally ineffectual as a Council Member, but that charge can be leveled at many other Council Members. Also, his bribery actions were not that different than some other "conflicts of interest" that were, and continue to be, normal for sitting Minneapolis politicians. Remember folks, in the last eight years three out of thirteen Wards in Minneapolis have had their Council Members go to Federal prison for corruption. And just for the record "IN MY OPINION" others have had similar "conflicts", but were simply too savvy to get caught up in the net that essentially caught only the small fish.

Dean's greatest folly, in my opinion, was not dropping the dime on the people who seduced him into the corruption. The people who were the actual target of the sting on Dean. The transcripts of the trial and the FBI reports make it clear who was the actual target.

So welcome home Dean. If I had known the bus was coming I would have tied a yellow ribbon around the old linden or maple tree.(don't have any oaks)

Jim Graham,
Ventura Village

More Absurd Coverage of Dean Zimmermann's Homecoming

2008-07-10T15:40:00.000-07:00

Steve Brandt in the Strib:

Zimmermann was convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity in exchange for his support of a developer's projects. But the man who entered prison contending that he'd been victimized more by overzealous prosecutors than his own wrongdoing said he's looking forward most to "being able to do useful work again."

Doug Grow at Minnpost

Heiser still clearly believes her husband was set up by politically motivated people in Minneapolis and the U.S. attorney's office. It was just weeks before the 2005 elections – which, because of redistricting, pitted Zimmermann against another incumbent, Bob Lilligren – that the Zimmermann-Heiser home was raided by FBI agents.

 
So, Zimmermann was an innocent victim of a "set-up"?

If Zimmermann was innocent the FBI tapes would exonerate him. But, only one person stands in the way of the FBI releasing those tapes - Zimmermann. Here's an AUSA describing what's in those tapes to the judges of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals:

The 8th Circuit affirmed Zimmermann's conviction unanimously and Zimmemrmann did not appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

UPDATE

I went back to read the Strib article and noticed that there were 80 comments. here is a sample:

1. Looks like the FBI already mastered "rat trapping" when
they pinched you.

2. I wonder if Dean is a proponent of evening-out sentencing
disparities between races and between "white collar" and
"street" crimes.

3. Now Go Away! What good are political beliefs if in
practice you are dishonest?

4. Why is it that fat people always think people are actually
interested in how they lost their excess lard? I always
ask them "how did you get that fat?" That seems to shut
them up.

5. Who cares? I don't. He's just another political crook
with no remorse or no accountability for his actions.
Why give him more than his '15 minutes' of notoriety?
Unless he does a Mother Theresa conversion, forget about
him. We have other life issues and things to worry about.

6. The man was given a fair trial and convicted. Will the
residents of MN ever wake up? Why would you subscribe
to a paper that writes such a soft article about a known
criminal? Face the facts, he is a convicted criminal.
Period.

7. Perhaps Mr. Brandt received a gratuity/bribe from
Mr. Zimmerman as incentive to portray Mr. Z as hero
rather than villain.

8. I am amazed at how many people are so self-righteous
these days. They can point out everyone else's flaws
as if they have none of their own. Just because
someone is a public figure, an elected official, and
makes a poor value judgment or action does not mean
they are totally unforgivable, forever. If we cannot
forgive others, how can we truly forgive ourselves?
I'm just making an observation.

9. Dean Zimmermann took the money in question while at a
fundraiser. A fundraiser, people, a fundraiser! Not
once - never! - did he ever vote for the donor's real
estate interests. The only reason Dean was set up was
because he very strongly opposed using our tax money
to build a stadium for Carl Pohlad. And now our tax
money has once again been misused in order to imprison
an innocent man - Dean Zimmermann!

It's too bad that the people who wrote these comments cannot see the videos from the trial. It would clear up a lot of misconceptions.

Zimmermann Returns to Minneapolis

2008-07-10T05:57:00.000-07:00

Minnesota Public Radio:

St. Paul, Minn. — Former Minneapolis city council member Dean Zimmermann returns to the city today to finish serving the remaining six months of a sentence for multiple bribery convictions.

In 2006 Zimmermann was sentenced to two and a half years in prison after a jury found him guilty of three counts of bribery.

His sentence was reduced after he participated in a drug treatment program. In an email message to his wife and friends Zimmermann mentioned that he tried to make the best use of his time while being incarcerated in a Colorado prison.

He said he's lost 55 pounds and spent much of his time reading and taking classes. Zimmermann will continue serving his sentence in a halfway house and will work for a construction company doing home construction and repair.

Will Zimmermann Return in July?

2008-06-24T10:24:00.000-07:00

A reporter told me Zimmermann is expecting to return to Minneapolis by bus and check into a halfway house on July 10th.

I checked with the BOP again and they won't say whether he is or isn't going to return to Minneapolis on July 10th.

Also, my second Freedom of Information request for the Zimmemrann FBI tapes was denied. The FBI said I needed to get a signed waiver from Zimmermann. I sent a waiver form to Zimmermann weeks ago... I have not received a reply.

I have heard rumors that Zimmermann plans to return to politics and may run again for the city council.

If Zimmermann does return in July, I hope reporters ask him to sign the waiver so people can see what is on those tapes.

The CPRT Throws Dean Zimmermann Under the Pod

2008-06-06T11:37:00.000-07:00

Looks like Dean Zimmermann's $500-$600 million Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) system plan has been scrubbed from the
Citizens for Personal Rapid Transit (CPRT.org) website. A small section of the map still appears (with a broken link) in the upper right-hand corner on the front page of Jerry Schneider's wacky gadgetbahn site. Did this video had anything to do with scrubbing the former Minneapolis councilman's map from the CPRT website?

Dean Zimmermann to Complete Last 6 Months of Sentence in Federal Prison

2008-06-05T08:30:00.000-07:00

Gary Dean Zimmermann wrote a letter that appeared in the April issue of The Alley (PDF file) that claimed he was going to be released July 10th, 2008:

But my stay here in Colorado will soon be coming to an end. On July 10th of this year I am to check into the Volunteers of America half-way house in Minneapolis, E. Lake St. & 29th Ave. So., for the last 6 months of my sentence.

According to the Bureau of Prisons inmate locator, Zimmermann's current release date from Federal Prison Camp-Englewood in Littleton, Colorado is January 5, 2009.

I have confirmed the new release date with the staff at Englewood.

Jeral Poskey - Supports Dean Zimmermann and John McCain

2008-05-23T21:13:00.000-07:00

When Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was a state senator, she told a reporter:

"People on the right, people on the left, we have the common goal of moving people with transit, but doing it in the most cost-effective manner, in fact, in a manner that may end up costing no government subsidy, it may end up paying for itself."

Jeral Poskey, former executive at Taxi 2000 and former head of the PRT-promoting Advanced Transit Association (ATRA) is a contributor to John McCain's campaign... but I remember when he defended Dean Zimmermann on the Minneapolis Issues forum:

Zimmermann conviction

From: Jeral Poskey Date: 2006 Aug 16 17:45 UTC Short link

I hesitate to re-open this wound to the city, but W. Brandon Lacy Campos wrote

something that has been disturbing me for the last several days: "I have to say that I am a bit saddened by Barb Lickness's Verdict Party taking place
tonight."

This is akin to celebrating Hurricane Katrina because you really disliked FEMA director Michael Brown. I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone can delight in a verdict that paints a stain on the city of Minneapolis.

I'm curious who else was at this Verdict Party. Who else put their personal grudges and grievances ahead of the city's well being?

Fortunately, I recently stepped down from my position on the board of the NorthLoop Neighborhood Association, as I would have found it very hard to work professionally with Barb knowing that she could find such enjoyment in a dark day in our city's history.

I hope I am wrong and read that out of context, but these are the thoughts that
have been burning my brain the last several days.

Jeral Poskey
North Loop

Watch a video Poskey made for his pod-pals ... funny that he says he's no longer the ATRA chairman when the ATRA website still claims he is the chairman... maybe ATRA will appoint Dean Zimmermann chairman when he gets out of jail in July.

Speaking of PRT, here's author James Howard Kunstler's podcast about the pod people:

Personal Rapid Transit (CPRT) Director - Zimmermann Was Framed

2008-05-03T16:20:00.000-07:00

At the 2008 Living Green Expo, Citizens for Personal Rapid Transit (CPRT) Director Margaret Beegle stated that Dean Zimmermann was framed.

"I think he was set up by the FBI... it's clear."

Is Dean Zimmermann a "Political Prisoner"?

2008-04-14T07:31:00.000-07:00

Scott Horton has an interesting article about how to spot political persecution. The investigation of Dean Zimmermann would appear to fit some of Scott Horton's description of politicial persecution. But, Zimmermann's own words and conduct belie that description.

I called the 8th Circuit Court and they told me that Zimmermann did not appeal his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court. He had 3 months to appeal and didn't bother... that seriously undermines his supporters' claim that Zimmermann was a "political prisoner" and was "framed"

If Zimmermann was indeed a political prisoner, the video and audio evidence would exonerate Zimmermann. However, his supporters have yet to call for the FBI to allow the public to see the evidence as I have done.

Here is the complete text of the letter Zimmermann sent to The Alley. While you read it, ask yourself if it sounds like the sort of letter a political prisoner would write.

Greetings to All A letter from Dean Zimmermann

It has been just over a year that I have been incarcerated here in "Camp Fluffy", as we affectionately call the Federal Prison Camp-Englewood in Littleton, Colorado. Perhaps the two best things to come out of the experience is that I have had a lot of time to get a lot of books read and I have been able to lose 40 pounds, I'm still working on losing 20 more. I also have had a chance to see my son, Klaus, on a weekly basis as he lives and works here in Denver. My stay here has been made much easier by the support, visits, letters, and books and magazines, that so many of you have sent me, thank you! But especially by the faithful and loving support of my dear wife, Jenny, with whom I speak daily on the phone.

This whole ordeal has been harder on her than anyone,including me, for as I sit here cut off and unable to be of any help to community and family, Jenny hasbeen burdened with the onerous task of keeping our Clinton Ave home and our former home at 17th Avenue together as well as taking care of my brother, Doug, who has had some major medical problems this last year (including his current stint in Abbott-NW Hospital, and Walker Methodist Health Care Center where he resides at this time). I want to offer my deepest thank you's to all who have been supportive of Jenny during these trying times.

All in all, I guess the best way to characterize my experience at the prison is: waste. It is a huge waste of resources, lives and time; and for what? So a few politicians can claim bragging rights that they are tougher on crime than their opponents or some FBI agent can earn a promotion by inventing a crime with which he can con someone into committing unwittingly. After listening to the stories of many of my fellow inmates this is not at all an uncommon occurrence. Did I mention that it is also a big waste of taxpayer's money? The U.S. has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisons. And to think the U.S. is called the Land of the Free.

But my stay here in Colorado will soon be coming to an end. On July 10th of this year I am to check into the Volunteers of America half-way house in Minneapolis, E. Lake St. & 29th Ave. So., for the last 6 months of my sentence. The purpose of the half-way house is to help people transitioning into regular life when they are leaving prison. My term at the half-way house is six months, ending on January 5, 2009, and then I'll start my 3 years of probation. As soon as I have a job and have worked a 40 hour week I will be eligible to go home on week-end passes. (After 1-2 inspections of our Clinton Ave home by the Feds and assuming it passes their inspections.) After a few more weeks, if all works out as it should, I can be eligible for "Home Confinement," which means I must be at my house except for going to work, religious services, AA meetings, or a few other pre-approved excursions.

The ability for me to get weekend passes and ultimately "Home Confinement" status is dependent upon my getting a job. They will not let me be self-employed during my 6 month term at the halfway house, but never fear I have a job offer that will allow me to resume my home repair work starting July 13th. There are still some details to be worked out so I don't want to say just yet who I'll be working for, but for any of you who have been putting off needed home repairs until I return, contact Jenny either with a phone call or an e-mail message and as soon as I return I'll be in touch with you. I have good skills in carpentry, plumbing, electrical work, roofing, sheetrocking, etc. and look forward to being of service to my former Jack of All Trades customers as well as new folks.

After January 5th, 2009 I want to gradually turn the focus of my home repair business in the direction of retrofitting older/preexisting homes for solar heating, both hot water and space heating, and installation of photo voltaic solar panels for the production of electricity for homes and small businesses. I am not sure yet how this will work and will be looking for people to partner with me in this endeavor. For the past 10-11 months I have found enlightenment through the "Zen of Dishwashing." However, that practice will be ending soon as I have found a new job being an orderly for the Education Room, a job that will take up significantly less time and allow me to do more reading, planning, and correspondence (Dan Scott: I sent you a letter in November but never heard back from you--?).

In my reading I have focused a lot on history. Everything from the early settlement of the Upper Midwest by European immigrants, to the spread of humans out of Africa some 50,000 years ago. The best book I have read is "Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" by Jared Diamond. It is a history of the past 13,000 years in just 450 pages, and gives deep insight into how it came to be that Europe conquered and developed worldwide empires rather than say China, or the Incas, or some other group doing so. And it is done in a 100% non-racist analysis. A book that gives a look into a little unknown bit of regional history is: "Land In Her Own Name: Women As Homesteaders in North Dakota," by H. Elaine who walk upright, consider that it will cost us far more to steal Iraq's oil than the fair price which might have been. So, it seems the smarter you are the dumber you can be. Lindgren. It gives documentation and shares stories of some 300 women (though there were thousands) who homesteaded in North Dakota. It was an eye opener for me. I knew that my great-grandmother homesteaded, but I thought that she was an exception, not so. I have also been reading about meditation and doing some meditation something new for me.

I have been reading about dreams and have begun writing down my dreams every night in a journal. My goal is to learn how to do "Lucid Dreaming" technique that allows one to be aware that one is dreaming while they are dreaming. It is easy to wake up and look back and see how absurd
the dream was and to know that it was a dream, but to actually stay aware inside the dream and to keep the dream going while knowing it is a dreamÉthat I have not yet achievedÉbut soon I hope.

I have also become an expert rat trapper and have taken it upon myself to set traps every night in the kitchen and am averaging about one rat per night. With the coming of Spring comes softball and I hope to be an umpire once again for the camp softball league. So far we have had one pickup gameÉ eat your hearts out you snow-bound Minnesotans :-) Besides softball umpiring, with my new job I will have time to work out twice a day in the weight room and on the track. Right now I do power-walking with some running for one hour every day, but soon I'll be able to do two one-hour sessions every day. I have also been attending Narcotics Anonymous once a week as part of my self-improvement program. So, although being in prison is a huge bother, I feel that it has given me a chance to slow down and tweek my priorities and to come out a better, more rounded person. I look forward to being back in Minneapolis, only 4 months and a few days to go. And I look forward to being fully integrated into the community by January 5, 2009. Again, many thanks to all for your letters, books, love, visits, and prayers, and for your support of Jenny. The goal is still to build a world environment and infrastructure, locally and globally, that is capable of sustaining your great-great-grandchildren, anything short of that is rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

Peace and love,
Dean Zimmermann

Gary D. Zimmermann,
#12696-041
FCI Englewood/Satellite Camp
9595 W. Quincy Avenue
Littleton, CO 80123

It will be interesting if Zimmermann's "goal... to build a world environment and infrastructure" still includes this:

Gary Dean Zimmermann to be Released July 10th

2008-03-30T14:05:00.000-07:00

The Alley Newspaper (no web site) has published a long letter from former Minneapolis Council member (Gary) Dean Zimmermann titled "Greetings to All". Much of the letter describes the trivial details of his incarceration and the "ordeal" of his wife Jenny Heiser. He mentions that he has been going once a week to Narcotics Anonymous.

Zimmermann's story that he was innocent has changed somewhat and stands in contrast to his supporters' claim that he is a "political prisoner".

Zimmermann now claims that politicians and FBI agents (he doesn't name them) conspired to "con' him into "unwittingly" commit a crime that the conspirators invented just for him:

Interview With Gary Carlson on the Uptake

2008-01-11T11:58:00.000-08:00

Interview with Gary Carlson at The Uptake:

Click To Play

Does Farheen Hakeem Really Believe Zimmermann Was "Innocent" and a "Political Prisoner"?

2008-01-05T06:30:00.000-08:00

Nearly a year ago, the Green Party candidate for Neva Walker's House seat (16B) Farheen Hakeem signed a letter of support for Gary Dean Zimmermann.

These are some statements from that letter posted by Dave Bicking on David Shove's Progressive Calendar:

"We are convinced that Dean is innocent of the crime of bribery"

"we stand in support of an honest man"

"We miss Dean's leadership on the Minneapolis City
Council."

"Dean Zimmermann is a political prisoner"

Farheen Hakeem also has Zimmermann's picture (far left) on her website:

"Farheen also finds it to be important that the Green Party has little involvement with corporate corruption and greed."

This is how the U.S. 8th Circuit Court summarized the case against Zimmermann when they unanimously upheld the jury's verdict last month:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On January 18, 2006, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Minnesota returned a four-count indictment against the
defendant, former Minneapolis City Councilman Gary Dean Zimmermann. The grand jury alleged in each of the four counts that Zimmermann violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(1)(B), by knowingly and corruptly soliciting something of value with intent to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction or series of transactions with the government of the City of Minneapolis. Counts 1, 2, and 3 pertained to $5,000, $1,200, and $1,000 cash payments, respectively, that Zimmermann accepted from a real estate developer, Gary Carlson, in June and August of 2005. Count 4 pertained to Zimmermann’s request made to a separate developer in 2004 for the construction, at no charge to him, of a retaining wall.

Zimmermann was convicted on the first three counts and sentenced 30 months in a federal correctional facility.

I had an opportunity to talk with the chief witness in the trial, Gary Carlson before the holidays. Here's the videotaped interview:

I live in MN House District 61B. I emailed Farheen Hakeem for a statement about her views on Zimmermann... I have not received an answer.

Gary Carlson Speaks

2007-12-22T14:21:00.000-08:00

Developer and Builder Gary Carlson talks about the trial of Gary Dean Zimmermann:

8th Circuit Appeals Court Upholds Zimmernann's Conviction

2007-12-17T19:08:00.000-08:00

Associated Press:

A federal appeals court has upheld the 2006 corruption conviction of former Minneapolis City Councilman Dean Zimmermann.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the evidence supported charges that he took an illegal gratuity for his support of a developer's projects.

The three judges on a panel of the court were unanimous in their 13-page opinion.

The appeals court also rejected the argument that Zimmermann was entrapped.

Zimmermann also appealed on the grounds that the trial judge limited the number of his constituents who testified he helped them without asking for anything in return.

The lower court let him call eight such witnesses, instead of the 13 he wanted. The appeals court found the excluded witnesses would not have made a difference.

Read the decision HERE.

Paulose Out?

2007-11-19T13:39:00.000-08:00

The AP reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rachel Paulose, the embattled U.S. attorney for Minnesota, will be leaving the post to take a position at the Justice Department in Washington, according to a Bush administration official and congressional aide.

Confirmed, Out.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. GARY DEAN ZIMMERMANN, APPELLANT.

2007-11-08T10:56:00.000-08:00

From 8th Circuit website:

No. 07-1062
Criminal

In the
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Eighth Circuit

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
APPELLEE,
v.
GARY DEAN ZIMMERMANN,
APPELLANT.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota

BRIEF OF APPELLEE

RACHEL K. PAULOSE
United States Attorney
Lisa D. Kirkpatrick
Assistant U.S. Attorney
District of Minnesota
600 United States Courthouse
300 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
(612) 664-5600
Attorneys for Appellee
i
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
Gary Dean Zimmermann was convicted in the District of
Minnesota of three counts of bribery in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 666(a)(1)(B). Zimmermann appeals
directly from the Judgment of the District Court, which was based
on the jury's verdict finding him guilty.
In this appeal, Zimmermann argues there was insufficient
evidence to support his conviction on three separate grounds.
First, he claims the government failed to prove the jurisdictional
value of the offenses of conviction, as well as failed to prove he
accepted the payments at issue as a quid pro quo for taking
official action. Second, he claims the government failed to prove
he was predisposed to accepting payments in exchange for official
action; therefore, he contends his entrapment defense must prevail.
And lastly, he claims the trial court abused its discretion in
limiting Zimmermann to calling five of his proposed thirteen
witnesses, each of whom would have testified (or did testify) that
Zimmermann never sought a gratuity from him for his work on their
behalf as a councilman. For all these reasons, he asks that this
Court overturn his conviction.
The issues raised by Zimmermann in this appeal are adequately
addressed in the parties' briefs. If oral argument is scheduled,
fifteen minutes per side should be sufficient.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY OF THE CASE......................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................... ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................iii
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES................... vi
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.....................1
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ....................3
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT................... 18
ARGUMENT .......................... 20
I. THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT A REASONABLE
JURY TO CONCLUDE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
ZIMMERMANN ACCEPTED A GRATUITY IN VIOLATION OF
FEDERAL LAW
II. THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT A REASONABLE
JURY TO CONCLUDE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
ZIMMERMANN WAS NOT ENTRAPPED
......................... 33
III.THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT LIMITED ZIMMERMANN TO CALLING 8 OF HIS 13
PROPOSED WITNESSES TO TESTIFY THAT ZIMMERMANN NEVER
SOUGHT A GRATUITY FROM THEM............ 39
CONCLUSION ......................... 42
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.................. 42
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE
CASES:
Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) ..... 34, 35
McDonald v. State, 329 So. 2d 583 (1975) .......... 24
Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) ...... 22, 25
Scott v. State, 141 N.E. 19 (Ohio 1923)........... 24
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) ..... 34, 35
United States v. Berg, 178 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 1999)..... 34
United States v. Bonito, 57 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 1995)
............................... 29
United States v. Brooks, 215 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2000).... 35
United States v. Burks, 934 F.2d 148 (8th Cir. 1991) .... 21
United States v. Cannon, 88 F.3d 1495 (8th Cir. 1996).... 34
United States v. Clark, 45 F.3d 1247 (8th Cir. 1995) .... 32
United States v. Coleman, 284 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2002) ... 34
United States v. Eldeeb, 20 F.3d 841 (8th Cir.1994)..... 34
United States v. Foley, 73 F.3d 484 (2d Cir. 1996) ..22, 24-26
United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1979)..... 23
United States v. Griffin, 154 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 1998) . 29, 30
United States v. Hamilton, 332 F.3d 1144 (8th Cir. 2003) 20, 21,
33
United States v. Ireland, 62 F.3d 227 (8th Cir. 1995).... 20
United States v. Johnson, 463 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2006) ... 40
United States v. Kendrick, 423 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2005)... 34
iv
United States v. Koessel, 706 F.2d 271 (8th Cir. 1983) ... 39
United States v. Kummer, 15 F.3d 1455 (8th Cir. 1994).... 33
United States v. Long, 952 F.2d 1520 (8th Cir. 1991) .. 21, 36
United States v. Lupino, 301 F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 2002).... 40
United States v. Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150 (1st Cir. 1993)... 30
United States v. Marmolejo, 89 F.3d 1185 (5th Cir. 1996), aff’d,
Salinas, U.S. at 52................. 23, 24, 26
United States v. Mongelli, 794 F. Supp. 529 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).24,
26, 27
United States v. Muldoon, 931 F.2d 282 (4th Cir. 1991) ... 30
United States v. Neal, 990 F.2d 355 (8th Cir. 1993)..... 34
United States v. Nilsen, 967 F.2d 539 (11th Cir. 1992) ... 23
United States v. Picquet, 963 F.2d 54 (5th Cir. 1992).... 23
United States v. Sabri, 326 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2003), aff’d, 541
U.S. 600 (2004)..................... 22, 25
United States v. Santopietro, 166 F.3d 88 (2d Cir 1999). 22, 25
United States v. Shaw, 570 F.2d 770 (8th Cir. 1978)..... 33
United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398 (1999).. 30
United States v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2003)..20,
33
United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1983) ... 23
v
PAGE
STATUTES:
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1029(a)(2) ...... 23
Title 18, United States Code, Section 201(b)(1)(C) ..... 30
Title 18, United States Code, Section 201(c) ........ 23
Title 18, United States Code, Section 201(g) ........ 24
Title 18, United States Code, Section 641.......... 23
Title 18, United States Code, Section 666........ 23, 29
Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(1)(B) . 21, 29, 30
OTHER AUTHORITIES:
United States Sentencing Guidelines, Section 2C1.1 ..... 30
United States Sentencing Guidelines, Section 2C1.2 ..... 30
vi
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
I. THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT A REASONABLE
JURY TO CONCLUDE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
ZIMMERMANN ACCEPTED A GRATUITY IN VIOLATION OF
FEDERAL LAW
United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398 (1999)
United States v. Marmolejo, 89 F.3d 1185 (5th Cir. 1996)
United States v. Mongelli, 794 F. Supp. 529 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)
II. THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT A REASONABLE
JURY TO CONCLUDE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
ZIMMERMANN WAS NOT ENTRAPPED
Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992)
III.THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
WHEN IT LIMITED ZIMMERMANN TO CALLING 8 OF HIS 13
PROPOSED WITNESSES TO TESTIFY THAT ZIMMERMANN NEVER
SOUGHT A GRATUITY FROM THEM
United States v. Koessel, 706 F.2d 271 (8th Cir. 1983)
1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 18, 2006, a federal grand jury sitting in the
District of Minnesota returned a four-count indictment against the
defendant, former Minneapolis City Councilman Gary Dean Zimmermann.
The grand jury alleged in each of the four counts that Zimmermann
violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(1)(B), by
knowingly and corruptly soliciting something of value with intent
to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business,
transaction or series of transactions with the government of the
City of Minneapolis. Counts 1, 2, and 3 pertained to $5,000,
$1,200, and $1,000 cash payments, respectively, that Zimmermann
accepted from a real estate developer, Gary Carlson, in June and
August of 2005. Count 4 pertained to Zimmermann’s request made to
a separate developer in 2004 for the construction, at no charge to
him, of a retaining wall.
On July 31, 2006, Zimmermann proceeded to a jury trial before
the Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Court Judge
for the District of Minnesota. Zimmermann testified on his own
behalf. In addition, he called sixteen witnesses. Of those sixteen
witnesses, eight offered “constituent service testimony” as to
Zimmermann’s utility in helping them with issues before the City
Council. The trial court excluded as cumulative an additional five
constituent witnesses. After eight days of testimony, a jury
1
Sent. Tr.” refers to the transcript from the Sentencing
Hearing held before the Honorable Ann D. Montgomery on December 19,
2006.
2
returned a verdict on August 10, 2006. The jury convicted
Zimmermann of Counts 1, 2, and 3 and acquitted him of Count 4.
On December 19, 2006, Judge Montgomery sentenced Zimmermann to
the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for thirty months as to each
count of conviction, to be served concurrently. (Sent. Tr.1 at 20;
Judgement at 2.) At sentencing, Zimmermann thanked Judge
Montgomery for giving him a fair trial. (Sent. Tr. at 17.) This
appeal of Zimmermann’s conviction followed.
2
Transcripts of the jury trial are separately numbered by day,
such that each day’s testimony is contained in a single volume.
The following citation format will be used to cite to the jury
trial in this case: citation to the volume (or day of testimony)
will precede citation to the page and will be separated by a colon.
For example, a citation to page 120 of testimony occurring on Day
1 will appear “1:120.”
3
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Defendant Gary Dean Zimmermann represented the Sixth Ward of
the City of Minneapolis as a member of the Minneapolis City Council
from 2002 until 2005. As a councilman, he served on the Zoning and
Planning Committee as one of its six members. (2:61; 6:109.)2 In
exchange for his influence with the committee and the City Council,
Zimmermann accepted $7,200.00 cash from real estate developer, Gary
Carlson. Unbeknownst to Zimmermann, however, Carlson was working
at the direction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) in
furtherance of a public corruption investigation. As a result of
the payments Zimmermann accepted, a jury convicted him on three
counts of bribery in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 666(a)(1)(B).
Carlson was a real estate developer who aspired to transition
from building and selling single-family homes to building larger,
commercial buildings. (2:144, 157.) Together with his wife,
Carlson formed the Chicago Commons Corporation to develop a multi-
million dollar, mixed-use building in south Minneapolis known as
Chicago Commons. (Id. at 144-46.) He envisioned the project as
4
having retail space, such as a coffee shop and a small grocery
store, on the ground floor with residential condominium units
occupying the upper floors. (Id. at 146.) In total, Chicago
Commons was to house eighty-one condominium units, which would sell
for approximately $200,000.00 each. (3:5.) Carlson estimated his
profits from the project at eight million dollars. (GE 18, at A-
21.)
Prior to breaking ground on the project in October of 2004,
Carlson obtained a zoning classification for Chicago Commons that
allowed for two small retail businesses to occupy the building.
(2:150-51.) Classification for only two retail spaces, however,
limited Carlson’s ability to market the project to prospective
buyers as an all-encompassing living environment. (Id. at 152.)
He envisioned the nearby hospitals’ and bank’s employees as his
niche market, and he believed that the ability to offer services on
the main floor, such as dry cleaning and a full-service grocer, was
critical to the project’s success. (Id. at 152, 162) To remedy
the marketing problem that the zoning classification created,
Carlson submitted a rezoning application to the City of
Minneapolis. (Id. at 160.)
In Minneapolis, the first step in acquiring a new zoning
classification is to submit a rezoning application to the City
Planning Department. (Id. at 59.) After receiving an application,
the department assigns a staff member to the application, who
5
writes a report analyzing the appropriateness of the rezoning.
(Id.) The staff member then presents that report to the Planning
Commission, which is comprised of representatives from various city
agencies. (Id. at 59-60.) The Planning Commission makes a
recommendation to the City Council’s Zoning and Planning Committee.
(Id. at 61.) For its part, the Zoning and Planning Committee
consists of six of the City Council’s thirteen members. (Id.) The
Zoning and Planning Committee considers the application and the
Planning Commissions recommendation and makes a recommendation to
the full City Council. (Id. at 62.) At that point, the City
Council takes a final vote on the Zoning and Planning Committee’s
recommendation regarding the rezoning application. (Id.) The City
Council’s decision is final, barring a mayoral veto. (Id.)
In the fall of 2004, Carlson knew that the staff member of the
City Planning Department assigned to consider his rezoning
application intended to recommend that Carlson’s application be
denied. (Id. at 161.) Carlson attributed this denial to an
existing retail mall that was kitty-corner from Chicago Commons,
the Village Market. (Id. at 161-62.) According to Carlson, the
Village Market was a mall that catered to Minneapolis’s Somali
community. (Id. at 163.) It was approved for thirty-eight shops
but, in fact, contained over 146 stores. (Id.)
Carlson believed that the Village Market’s overcrowded
conditions, coupled with poor, heavy-handed management, caused much
6
of the violence and drug trafficking that occurred in the area.
(Id.) Neighborhood organizations opposed Carlson’s rezoning
application, because they believed he was connected with the
Village Market’s owners and that Chicago Commons was nothing more
than an expansion of the Village Market. (Id. at 181.)
Around the same time that Carlson knew the City Planning
Department intended to recommend denial of his rezoning
application, Carlson met Zimmermann at the Minneapolis City Hall.
(Id. at 152-53.) During this first encounter, the two men did no
more than introduce themselves. (Id.) Later, they ran into each
other again but did not have any substantive discussions. (Id. at
153.) However, during their third encounter, Zimmermann solicited
$100,000 from Carlson, purportedly to help pay a legal bill
Zimmermann incurred while unsuccessfully challenging a Minneapolis
redistricting plan. (Id. at 155.) Zimmermann’s solicitation was
in response to Carlson’s benign request as to what he could do to
help Zimmermann’s campaign. (Id.) Carlson responded that $100,000
was a lot of money, and he offered to talk to Zimmermann’s attorney
in order to negotiate a lower fee. (Id.) However, Zimmermann
refused Carlson’s offer but replied that $40,000 would “make him
[the attorney] go away.” (Id.)
Months later, Carlson and Zimmermann unexpectedly ran into
each other again at a conference in Minneapolis. (Id. at 157.)
Carlson was taking a break from the conference and was outside when
3
Transcripts of the recorded conversations played and shown to
the jury in this case will be cited to by the government exhibit
(“GE”) number, as well as to the page number(s) of the
corresponding transcript contained in the Appendix. The
transcripts were published to the jury but not admitted into
evidence. The recordings themselves were admitted into evidence.
However, counsel for the government and for the defendant have
conferred and agreed that the government would file an appendix
containing transcripts of pertinent conversations.
7
Zimmermann approached him and asked him whether he had thought
about their previous discussion concerning money. (Id. at 159.)
Carlson informed Zimmermann that he could help him (Zimmermann),
and Zimmermann stressed that the matter was urgent and that the
money was needed quickly. (Id.)
Three days later, the business day, Carlson contacted the FBI.
(5:49.) Thereafter, Carlson began working as an FBI cooperating
witness and had no further discussions with Zimmermann that were
not recorded and undertaken at the FBI’s direction. (2:160.)
At the direction of the FBI and wearing an electronic
listening device, Carlson met Zimmermann at a restaurant, the Black
Forest Inn, where Zimmermann was celebrating his birthday and
holding a fundraiser on June 6, 2005. (Id. at 168.) During this
recorded conversation, Zimmermann and Carlson talked about
Carlson’s zoning issues, and Carlson made clear that, if Zimmermann
helped push the rezoning application through the City Council,
Carlson would financially reward Zimmermann. (GE 16, at A-5-13.)3
Carlson repeatedly told Zimmermann that he had millions of dollars
riding on the Chicago Commons project (GE 18, at A-34; GE 31, at A-
8
36.) Zimmermann was up front about what he wanted in exchange for
his support:
Carlson: We talked outside the other day. What do
you need? What can I do to help you?
Zimmermann: Money, money, money.
(GE 16, at A-7.) As the recording reveals, there is no break in
conversation between Carlson’s zoning issues, what Carlson needs
from Zimmermann as a councilman, and Zimmermann’s request for
payment from Carlson in exchange for his influence. Further, the
pair cemented their deal and agreed to keep their agreement quiet,
stating:
Carlson: Okay? I'll get you the money next Monday.
I go to Florida this week, so I'll hook up
with you and give you the money Monday.
Zimmermann: Okay.
Carlson: But you be quiet about this to Azzam and
everybody.
Zimmermann: Oh, no, no, I didn't...
Carlson: Okay?
Zimmermann: ...hear a word of it.
Carlson: You got it. Just between you and me.
Zimmermann: Yep.
Carlson: Sure.
Zimmermann: That's the only thing I, I didn't hear a
word.
Carlson: You got it.
Zimmermann: Yeah. As far as...
9
Carlson: Okay. You give me your vote, get me that
vote, and get me my help through there, I'll
take care of you. Okay?
Zimmermann: Okay. You got it.
(Id. at A-8-9) (emphasis added.)
Carlson and Zimmermann concluded their conversation at the
Black Forest Inn with Carlson agreeing to give Zimmermann several
thousand dollars toward Zimmermann’s legal bill, and they agreed to
meet again. (Id. at A-12-14.) As promised, they met again
approximately one week later, this time at the Baja Riverside
restaurant. (2:181-82.) This meeting took place before any money
exchanged hands but after the Planning Commission recommended that
Carlson’s May 30, 2007 rezoning application be denied. (See id. at
178.) Shortly after Zimmermann sat down with Carlson at the
restaurant, Carlson handed Zimmermann an envelope containing $5,000
cash, stating:
Carlson: Before I forget, Dean. Ah. This is for
that attorney thing or whatever we talked
about.
Zimmermann: Yeah.
Carlson: So, use it what you want.
Zimmermann: Okay. Alright.
Carlson: That should help out. Umh. Get him taken
care of. Or whatever you want to do. Just
be careful how you use that, because it's...
Zimmermann: Yeah.
(GE 18, at A-18.)
10
Carlson was wearing a hidden camera during the encounter at
the Baja Riverside restaurant, and the jury viewed the video of the
meeting. The video recording of this meeting (government exhibit
18) shows that, with complete fluidity of motion and without a
break in conversation, Zimmermann accepted the $5,000 from Carlson,
stuffed it deep into his pants pocket, and began talking about
zoning and other official city business.
For the next hour, Carlson and Zimmermann discussed zoning
and, in particular, Carlson’s issues with making Chicago Commons a
financially viable project. Of particular interest, one of the
topics Zimmermann and Carlson discussed concerned Carlson’s course
of action in light of the Planning Commission’s recommendation,
which was made only one day before this meeting, that Carlson’s
rezoning application be denied. As previously noted, Zimmermann
serves on the Zoning and Planning Committee, which considers
Planning Commission recommendations before presenting its own
recommendation to the full City Council. Zimmermann instructed
Carlson to appeal the Commission’s decision, stressing that the
appeal would go before Zimmermann’s committee:
Zimmermann: ...here's how we approach. I mean, you're
going to have to appeal it. Right.
Carlson: Okay.
Zimmermann: And then that'll come to the, to our
committee, Zoning and, and Planning
Committee, for the appeal.
(Id. at A-25.)
11
Further, Zimmermann brain-stormed about other ways to deal
with the zoning problem, especially the omnipresent issue of the
neighborhood’s distrust concerning expansion of the Village Market.
For the first time, Zimmermann broached the subject of finding a
new home for the Village Market’s vendors. As he saw it, moving
the Village Market out of the neighborhood would relieve the
pressures from overcrowding and its attendant problems that the
Chicago Commons area faced. (Id. at A-36.) Zimmermann expected
that relieving this pressure would alleviate the neighborhood’s
concerns about Carlson’s project. (Id.)
The only other main topic of discussion during that hour-long
conversation at the Baja Riverside restaurant centered on ways
Carlson could provide financial support to Zimmermann and his
campaign in spite of the $300/person campaign contribution limit.
(GE 18, at Tab 3.) They discussed:
Carlson: You had mentioned last time about cousins.
Zimmermann: Mm-hm.
Carlson: About a number of cou--...
Zimmermann: Well, the problem...
Carlson: How do I do that? You got a limit of three
hundred bucks or something. You can't get
elected on three hundred bucks.
Zimmermann: Mm-hm.
Carlson: Not in a poor community.
Zimmermann: Cousins. Yeah, we like cousins.
12
Carlson: You like cousins? How do I do it? Do I...
Zimmermann: You just go to your cousin, whoever, your
brother, whoever, and...
Carlson: The phone book, whoever, and get... Do you
need the names?
Zimmermann: ...just give them three hundred dollars and
say, "Write a check to Zimmermann for
Council."
Carlson: Got it. Okay.
Zimmermann: Just give them three hundred cash. Nobody
knows, nobody cares.
Carlson: Got it.
Zimmermann: Give them...
Carlson: I can do that.
Zimmermann: ...three-fifty and have them write a check
for three hundred. I don't know.
Carlson: Got it.
Zimmermann: Just do whatever...
(Id. at A-49-50.)
In the midst of their conversation, Carlson clarified the deal
the two had arranged. He stated, “You help me with this, I'll take
care of that for you.” (Id. at A-33.) Zimmerman replied, “Right.
It's, uh, and, uh, I mean that, that's pretty minimal amount of
money for somebody . . . .” (Id.) Carlson was neither shy nor coy
about what he was willing to offer Zimmermann (that is, money) and
what he expected in exchange (that is, Zimmermann’s support on the
City Council).
13
On July 14, 2005, the City Zoning and Planning Committee met
and voted to deny Carlson’s appeal. (7:3.) Zimmermann arrived to
the committee meeting after the vote occurred. (Id.) On July 23,
2005, the City Council met and voted to deny Carlson’s rezoning
classification request. (Id. at 4-5.) The vote was unanimous,
including Zimmermann’s vote to deny the request. (Id. at 5.)
Zimmermann and Carlson did not meet face-to-face again until August
3, 2005 at the Chicago Commons project site. (3:25.) By this
point in time, they began to focus on “Plan B,” that is, finding a
new retail space for the Village Market’s tenants. During their
August 3rd meeting, however, Carlson questioned what Zimmermann had
done for him in exchange for the $5,000 payment on June 14th.
Before Zimmermann explained the steps he allegedly took and the
people to whom he spoke about the project, the following
conversation took place:
Carlson: One thing. Can I...? Can I ask something?
You know, we, we did the five grand, and
then it went b--, we couldn't get, and I
know you tried, Dean, I know you did,
because you couldn't get support. But what
happened?
Zimmermann: Well, mostly it's a reaction to that mall
over there. They don't want more retail in
here because there is already so much that
everything is jammed up, and so, uhm,
they're just really trying to figure out
something that isn't going to be high
traffic.
(GE 31, at A-85.)
4
Campaign finance rules limit contributions to $300 per person
during an election year. (4:74.) Zimmermann’s campaign treasurer,
Gerald Dastych, testified that he kept a record of the names of all
contributors to Zimmermann’s campaign, as well as of their total
contributions, their addresses and their employers. (Id.) If a
campaign contribution envelope was not complete, Mr. Dastych
testified that he would routinely investigate the matter to ensure
the donation’s legitimacy. (Id. at 80-81.)
14
Giving the impression that he could advocate and exert
influence on behalf of Carlson’s interests despite the adverse
voting outcome, Zimmermann handed Carlson three campaign
contribution envelopes at the conclusion of this meeting. (3:31-
32.)
On August 15, 2005, the two men met again. This time,
Zimmermann accepted $1200 cash, which was contained in four
campaign contribution envelopes with names of people Carlson
expressly told Zimmermann were not the true donors.4 Carlson said,
“but if you call them, I gave them a little extra, they'll verify
that they gave it. They didn't, but they're my relatives. Right?”
(GE 15, at 33.) Zimmermann replied, “Got it.” (Id.)
As in previous discussions where money was either discussed or
changed hands, official city business preceded and followed this
exchange of money. Immediately after Zimmermann accepted the $1200
from Carlson, Zimmermann began talking about getting zoning
approval to construct a new retail mall that catered to the Somali
community in an old warehouse that was located in Zimmermann’s
district. (Id.) Again, the intent of the new mall was to
15
alleviate the problems created by the Village Market, which
Zimmermann and Carlson both viewed as the main impediment to the
City Council’s approval of Carlson’s rezoning application.
With a new plan of action in place, Carlson led Zimmermann to
believe that Carlson was building support for the new retail mall.
On August 31, 2005, Carlson went to Zimmermann’s home and delivered
$1000 cash in a single envelope. (3:45.) The envelope did not
have a name on it, as required by campaign finance rules, and
Carlson instructed Zimmermann to complete the name portion of the
envelope himself. (GE 40, at A-125.) In addition, Carlson
expressly told Zimmermann what his motivation was in giving
Zimmermann the $1,000 gratuity: “That's for getting us the zoning
over there.” (Id.) Zimmermann did not object to this
characterization. Instead, he simply stated, “So...alright.”
(Id.)
On September 8, 2005, Zimmermann went to Chicago Commons
believing he was meeting an important member of Minneapolis’s
Somali community who would have influence with regard to the
proposed mall. (3:47.) Instead, two FBI special agents met
Zimmermann inside the office and questioned him about his dealings
with Carlson. (GE 55, at Tab 7.) Time and time again, Zimmermann
lied and denied receiving any money from Carlson until after he had
been shown the videotapes of him accepting money.
16
At the outset, agents began the interview playing the audio
tape of the June 6, 2005 meeting between Zimmermann and Carlson at
the Black Forest Inn. During this encounter, as outlined in
greater detail above, Zimmermann and Carlson discussed Zimmermann’s
legal bill and Zimmermann’s need for “money, money, money.” When
confronted with this recorded conversation, Zimmermann denied that
Carlson ever gave him money but instead insisted that he directed
Carlson to send any contributions directly to the attorney. (Id.
at A-164.) He also stated that, although he directed Carlson to
send money directly to the attorney, Carlson never followed through
on his inquiry. (Id. at A-174-175.) Later in the interview,
agents showed Zimmermann the video of Zimmermann accepting cash
from Carlson on June 14, 2005. (Id. at A-172.) Only then did he
admit to receiving the money. He falsely stated, however, that the
money was in a desk drawer at his home and that he was in the
process of forwarding it to his attorney.
Before showing Zimmermann the video of him accepting $5000
from Carlson, agents cautioned Zimmermann against lying.
Thereafter, Zimmermann admitted to receiving $1200 from Carlson.
(Id. at A-165.) He claimed, however, that this was the sum total
he ever received from Carlson and that he did not make use of the
money because he was suspicious about the money’s origins given the
suspect names on the contribution envelopes. (Id. at A-166, A-174-
177.)
17
As noted above, eventually, Zimmermann had to concede he had
received more than $1200 from Carlson because he was captured doing
so on video. It is noteworthy, however, that he refused to admit
to receiving cash from Carlson until after agents showed him
videotapes of the transactions at issue.
After admitting to accepting the $5000 from Carlson in
addition to the $1200 he earlier admitted to, Zimmermann stated
that he never accepted any other payments from Carlson. (Id. at A-
186.) Again, this was false. Zimmermann eventually admitted to
receiving $1000 from Carlson and stated that, like the other
monies, it was still in tact and in Zimmerman’s desk drawer at
home. (Id. at A-193.)
A search warrant uncovered much of Zimmermann’s deception.
FBI agents executed a search warrant on Zimmermann’s home shortly
after the interview concluded. (5:36.) Although Zimmermann had
claimed, at one point or another in the interview, that all $7,200
he received from Carlson was in a desk drawer in his home, the only
cash in that drawer was the $1,200 he accepted from Carlson on
August 15, 2005. (Id. at 36-37.) The envelopes in which the
$1,200 was contained were admitted into evidence, and Zimmermann’s
campaign treasurer testified that neither the envelopes nor the
fact of the contributions was disclosed to him. (4:80.) Instead,
Zimmermann accepted the $7,200 from Carlson as a gratuity for
taking official action in front of the Minneapolis City Council.
18
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences that can be
drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict,
there was more than sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to
conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmermann accepted
gratuities in violation of federal law. Further, the $5,000
jurisdictional floor was easily met in that this case centered on
payments made in exchange for Zimmermann’s support and influence in
obtaining zoning for the construction of a multi-million dollar
residential and commercial building project.
Moreover, the evidence proved Zimmermann was predisposed to
illegally accepting gratuities prior to any contact by law
enforcement. Zimmermann solicited money from real estate developer
Carlson for his help before Carlson began his assistance to the
government. Indeed, it was in response to Zimmermann’s improper
solicitation that Carlson went to the FBI to report the episode.
Furthermore, even after Carlson began acting at the behest of
government agents, it was Zimmermann who asked for money. (GE 16,
at A-7.)
In addition, the evidence demonstrated that Zimmermann sought
a similar gratuity from a separate individual over a year before
Carlson encountered Zimmermann. Zimmermann also evinced his
predisposition to accepting illegal gratuities by instructing
Carlson to evade campaign contribution limits by donating using
19
false names. What is more, he failed to turn over the
contributions to his campaign treasurer and used them to pay for
personal expenses. Zimmermann also revealed his culpability by
repeatedly lying to FBI agents about receiving payments and about
the disposition of those payments.
Lastly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
limiting Zimmermann to calling eight of thirteen proposed
witnesses, all of whom testified (or would have testified) that
Zimmermann acted favorably on their behalf in his capacity as a
public official and did not ask for anything in return.
20
ARGUMENT
I. THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT A REASONABLE JURY TO
CONCLUDE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ZIMMERMANN ACCEPTED A
GRATUITY IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW
A. Standard of Review
Zimmermann asks this Court to overturn his convictions as to
each count on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to
prove, one, that the $5,000 jurisdictional floor was met in this
case and, two, that Zimmermann accepted payments from Carlson in
return for official action. Contrary to Zimmermann’s arguments,
there was more than sufficient evidence to support the jury’s
findings. Indeed, there were video and audio recordings of
Zimmermann’s malfeasance. Accordingly, his claim must be rejected.
The standard of review applied to sufficiency-of-the-evidence
claims is well-established. This Court “‘view[s] the evidence in
the light most favorable to the government, resolving conflicts in
the government’s favor, and accepting all reasonable inferences
that support the verdict.’” United States v. Hamilton, 332 F.3d
1144, 1148 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Washington,
318 F.3d 845, 852 (8th Cir. 2003)). Courts may neither reweigh the
evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses, as these
tasks belong exclusively to the jury. United States v. Ireland, 62
F.3d 227, 230 (8th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, reviewing courts must
consider all evidence presented at trial, even evidence relating to
21
counts on which the jury did not convict. United States v. Long,
952 F.2d 1520, 1525 (8th Cir. 1991).
This is a strict standard of review. Hamilton, 332 F.3d at
1149. “[T]he verdict of the jury should not be overturned
lightly.” United States v. Burks, 934 F.2d 148, 151 (8th Cir.
1991). This Court will uphold the verdict “if there is any
interpretation of the evidence that could lead a reasonable-minded
jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Hamilton, 332 F.3d at 1149.
B. The Jurisdictional Value
Zimmermann was convicted of violating Title 18, United States
Code, Section 666(a)(1)(B). That statute provides, in pertinent
part:
(a) Whoever, if the circumstance described in subsection
(b) of this section exists--
(1) being an agent of an organization, or of a State,
local, or Indian tribal government, or any agency
thereof--
. . . .
(B) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any
person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value
from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded
in connection with any business, transaction, or series
of transactions of such organization, government, or
agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more .
. . .
18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B).
Zimmermann’s first claim in this appeal is that the $5,000
jurisdictional floor contained in subpart (B) of the statute was
not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, because the government did
22
not prove the City of Minneapolis expended $5,000 in considering
Carlson’s rezoning request. (Defendant’s Br. at 24-25.) For this
proposition, Zimmermann relies on a Second Circuit case, United
States v. Foley, 73 F.3d 484 (2d Cir. 1996). He fails to
acknowledge, however, that the Foley opinion was abrogated by the
Supreme Court opinion in Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52
(1997) which abrogation has been expressly recognized by both the
Second and Eighth Circuits. See United States v. Sabri, 326 F.3d
937 (8th Cir. 2003), aff’d, 541 U.S. 600 (2004); United States v.
Santopietro, 166 F.3d 88 (2d Cir 1999).
In Foley, real estate developers Taft-Crosspointe Limited
Partnership sought a $12.5 million loan from Fleet Bank to develop
a shopping plaza. 73 F.3d at 486. However, Fleet Bank was unable
to process the loan, because of a state law that required Fleet
Bank to divest itself of certain holdings. Id. In response, the
Taft-Crosspointe partners contacted Foley, a member of the state
legislature. Id. In exchange for being hired as a consultant with
Taft-Crosspointe, Foley delivered the necessary votes to exempt
Fleet Bank from the state law. Id. As promised, Taft-Crosspointe
hired Foley as a consultant, and, at the time the bribery was
discovered, Foley had received $25,000 from Taft-Crosspoint. Id.
On appeal from a conviction under Section 666(a)(1)(B), Foley
challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as it related to the
$5000 jurisdictional value set forth in the statute. The Foley
23
Court overturned Foley’s conviction, because there was no evidence
that the legislation that Foley pushed through had a $5,000 value
to the State of Connecticut. Id. at 493 (emphasis added).
The same year, the Fifth Circuit applied a very different
analysis to the $5,000 requirement in United States v. Marmolejo,
89 F.3d 1185 (5th Cir. 1996), aff’d, Salinas, U.S. at 52. In
Marmolejo, a prisoner paid a sheriff and a deputy $6,000 per month
plus $1,000 to permit conjugal visits. Id. at 1191. The
defendants argued that intangible services, namely, permitting the
conjugal visits, did not fall within the ambit of § 666's
prohibited conduct, because they were not a “thing of value.” Id.
The Fifth Circuit disagreed.
In deciding that intangibles were a thing of value for
purposes of determining the jurisdictional amount, the Fifth
Circuit relied on case law throughout federal and state courts:
(“We also note that other courts have interpreted the
term ‘anything of value’ in criminal statutes broadly to
include intangibles.”) (citing United States v. Nilsen,
967 F.2d 539, 542 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating that
"Congress' frequent use of 'thing of value' in various
criminal statutes has evolved the phrase into a term of
art which the courts generally construe to envelope both
tangibles and intangibles”); United States v. Picquet,
963 F.2d 54, 55 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding that the term
"anything of value” in 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) should be
interpreted broadly); United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d
69, 71 (2d Cir. 1979) (holding that term "thing of
value,” when used in criminal statutes, such as in 18
U.S.C. § 641, includes intangibles, such as amusement,
sexual intercourse, a promise to reinstate an employee,
and information); see also United States v. Williams, 705
F.2d 603, 622-23 (2d Cir. 1983) (holding that term
“anything of value” in 18 U.S.C. § 201(c) and 18 U.S.C.
24
§ 201(g) can apply to stock that, although it had no
actual value, the defendant expected it to have value);
McDonald v. State, 329 So. 2d 583, 587-88 (1975) (holding
that sexual intercourse or the promise of sexual
intercourse is a "thing of value” under state bribery
statute); Scott v. State, 141 N.E. 19, 22-23 (Ohio 1923)
(same)).

Id. at 1192. Thus, the Fifth Circuit held that because the
conjugal visits had value of $5,000 or more to the prisoner who
made payment, the payments to the sheriff and deputy to allow the
visits were within the bribery statute. Id. at 1194.
Contrary to Foley, the Fifth Circuit held that the statute did
not require the government to show the value of the bribe to the
governmental entity. Id. n.10. Instead, noting that “[t]he
statute does not specifically require that the payor or the payee
of the bribe value the transaction at $5,000,” the Fifth Circuit
opined that courts should look to “traditional valuation methods.”
Id. at 1194 (citing United States v. Mongelli, 794 F. Supp. 529
(S.D.N.Y. 1992) (outlining traditional valuation methods in context
of § 666 prosecution where $5,000 jurisdictional value was at issue
when defendant accepted bribes in exchange for issuing dumping
licenses)). In Marmolejo, one such traditional valuation method
was simply to look at the amount of payment made, because that is
what the payor was willing to pay. Id.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling,
rejecting the defendant’s argument that “the Government must prove
the bribe in some way affected federal funds, for instance by
5
Similarly, the Eighth Circuit recognized Foley’s abrogation
in United States v. Sabri, 326 F.3d 937, 941 (8th Cir. 2003),
aff’d, 541 U.S. 600 (2004).
25
diverting or misappropriating them” before the statute can be
violated. Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 55 (1997). The
Supreme Court, however, did not address the question of valuation.
Id. (“Nor do we review the Court of Appeals' determination that the
transactions at issue ‘involv[ed] any thing of value of $5,000 or
more,’ since Salinas does not offer any cognizable challenge to
that aspect of the Court of Appeals' decision. We simply decide
that, as a matter of statutory construction, § 666(a)(1)(B) does
not require the Government to prove the bribe in question had any
particular influence on federal funds . . . .”).
After Salinas, the Second Circuit expressly recognized that
Foley’s holding had been abrogated. United States v. Santopietro,
166 F.3d 88 (2d Cir 1999).5 The question of valuation remained
open, and the court in Santopietro succinctly framed the issue
before the court:
The precise issue is whether the $5,000 or more required
to be involved in the transaction must be worth at least
that amount to a recipient of federal funds, as Foley
held, see 73 F.3d at 492-93, or whether, in light of
Salinas, it is sufficient if the transaction is worth
$5,000 or more to any person or entity . . . .
Id. at 90.
Recognizing the Supreme Court’s decision in Salinas had
“somewhat eroded Foley,” the court plainly stated: “[T]o the extent
26
that Foley required the Government to plead and prove that the
transaction involved something of value to the governmental entity
that received the requisite amount of federal funds, that narrowing
construction of the statute must also be discarded.” Id. at 92-93.
Thus, Foley is no longer good law on the point for which Zimmermann
cites it, and this Court should reject his attempt to revive it.
Instead, this Court should look to traditional valuation
methods, which were cited with approval by the Fifth Circuit in
Marmolejo. Namely, this Court should look to the following
methods:
(a) The amount of the bribe offered may be an indication
of the market value of the advantage to be purchased, in
the same way that an appraiser would look to prices
actually offered for an asset in determining its value;
(b) The dollar amount of gross business or profit
obtainable by one having licenses similar to those sought
to be obtained by the bribe offered may establish the
jurisdictional amount;
(c) Evidence may establish the actual value of the
licenses to the defendants (or in the market if they were
sold).
United States v. Mongelli, 794 F. Supp. 529, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)
(cited with approval by Marmolejo, 89 F.3d at 1194).
Approval of a rezoning request and finding a new home for the
Village Market’s tenants are services that cannot be valued by
simply looking to the dollars expended by the City of Minneapolis
researching Carlson’s rezoning application. Such an interpretation
of the statute is not only contrary to common sense but would
6
Even if one were to simply value the service by looking to
the amount paid by Carlson, which the Court should not do, the
payment relating to Count 1 clearly suffices.
27
plainly undermine congressional intent, essentially immunizing
bribery from prosecution in the context of the vast majority of
governmental business. Instead, this Court should look to how
Carlson valued Zimmermann’s efforts to further his commercial
building development.6
Carlson repeatedly told Zimmermann that he had millions of
dollars riding on the Chicago Commons project (GE 18, at A-34; GE
31, at A-36.) He also told Zimmermann that he expected to realize
eight million dollars profit from the development. (GE 18, at A-
21.) Because Carlson’s ability to market and sell the condominium
units at Chicago Commons was, as Carlson saw it, dependent upon
rezoning and, thereafter, the relocation of the Village Market
tenants, determining the jurisdictional value based on the value of
Chicago Commons project is appropriate and seamlessly into the
second category of valuation alternatives outlined by the Mongelli
Court.
There is no dispute that the value of the Chicago Commons
project was well in excess of the $5,000 jurisdictional floor,
given that there were eighty-one condominium units that were to be
sold at approximately $200,000 each. (3:5.) Further, Carlson
repeatedly told Zimmermann that he had millions of dollars invested
28
in the project, and he stood to profit eight million dollars upon
its success. (E.g., GE 18, at A-21.)
In addition to Count 1, looking to the value of the Chicago
Commons project is appropriate as to Counts 2 and 3, as well,
because Carlson and Zimmermann evidently believed that finding and
developing a new retail mall that catered to the Village Market
tenants was critical to the success of Chicago Commons after
Carlson’s rezoning efforts failed. (6:179) (Zimmermann admits
suggesting Village Market relocate to help Carlson’s business). In
Carlson’s words, the overcrowded environment, which resulted in
increased crime and violence, made the area “threatening.” (3:70.)
Even according to Zimmermann, it was “pretty clear to even the most
casual observer that the Village Market is bursting at the seams.”
(6:179.) Carlson believed that he could not sell condominium units
with the Village Market across the street from his project.
(3:70.) Because the profit obtainable by way of rezoning or,
alternatively, relocating the Village Market was plainly in excess
of $5,000, Zimmermann’s first sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument
fails.
C. Proof of Intent
Zimmermann next argues that there is insufficient proof that
a quid pro quo was intended when he accepted Carlson’s payments,
because Zimmermann supported Carlson’s rezoning application before
the $5,000 payment and supported the idea behind creating a new
29
mall catering to the Somali community before the $1,200 and $1,000
payments. In essence, Zimmermann contends that he cannot be guilty
of accepting payments for undertaking ministerial tasks that he
would have undertaken irrespective of the gratuities. (Defendant’s
Br. at 28..) This claim is incorrect as a matter of both fact and
law. Indeed, were Zimmermann’s arguments correct, a public
official would always be able to accept things of value as a reward
for official acts that he or she would have undertaken anyway.
This is simply not the law.
Section 666 prohibits both the quid pro quo ilk of bribes that
Zimmermann argues the government failed to prove and the acceptance
of gratuities intended to be a bonus for taking official action.
See, e.g., United States v. Griffin, 154 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir.
1998) (recognizing distinction between gratuity and bribery in
context of prosecution under § 666 for accepting a gratuity);
United States v. Bonito, 57 F.3d 167, 171 (2d Cir. 1995) (§ 666
applies to prosecutions for both bribery and gratuities). Because
Zimmermann was convicted of accepting gratuities in violation of
Title 18, Section 666(a)(1)(B), the government was not required to
prove that a quid pro quo was intended. See id. Indeed, the
statute criminalizes those who “corruptly solicit[] or demand[] for
the benefit of any person, or accept[] or agree[] to accept,
anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or
7
The statutory index to the Sentencing Guidelines provides
that both provisions 2C1.1 and 2C1.2 are potentially applicable to
convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B).
30
rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of
transactions . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added).
Indeed, Zimmermann was sentenced for having accepted a
gratuity, not a bribe. (See J&C; PSR.) The United States
Sentencing Guidelines provide for two separate base offense levels
applicable to violations of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), depending
upon whether a defendant is convicted of taking a bribe versus
taking a gratuity.7 Compare U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1 (bribes), with id. §
2C1.2 (gratuities). Conviction for taking a gratuity results in a
lower base offense level than for taking a bribe. Id. “The
distinction between a bribe and an illegal gratuity is the corrupt
intent of the person giving the bribe to receive a quid pro quo,
something that the recipient would not otherwise have done.”
Griffin, 154 F.3d at 763 (section 666 prosecution) (citing United
States v. Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150, 1159 (1st Cir. 1993); United
States v. Muldoon, 931 F.2d 282, 287 (4th Cir. 1991)). Zimmermann
was sentenced under the gratuity Guidelines provision, which was
appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case. (PSR;
Judgment, at 1.)
In the context of the general bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. §
201(b)(1)(C), the Supreme Court in United States v. Sun-Diamond
31
Growers, 526 U.S. 398 (1999), explained the distinction between
bribery and gratuities:
The distinguishing feature of each crime is its intent
element. Bribery requires intent “to influence” an
official act or “to be influenced” in an official act,
while illegal gratuity requires only that the gratuity be
given or accepted “for or because of” an official act.
In other words, for bribery there must be a quid pro
quo-a specific intent to give or receive something of
value in exchange for an official act. An illegal
gratuity, on the other hand, may constitute merely a
reward for some future act that the public official will
take (and may already have determined to take), or for a
past act that he has already taken.
Id. at 404-05.
Here, there was more than sufficient evidence from which a
jury could find that Zimmermann accepted Carlson’s payments as
rewards for official acts. As to Count 1, Carlson told Zimmermann
that the $5,000 payment was to be used however Zimmermann saw fit.
(GE 18, at A-18.) While there was talk of Zimmermann’s legal bill,
Carlson did not attach any strings to the payment and, in fact,
Zimmermann used the money to pay for personal expenses. More
telling, however, is the context in which the payment was made.
Carlson handed the money to Zimmermann in the midst of an hour-long
conversation about official city business. Later, on August 3,
2005, Carlson again explicitly connected the $5,000 payment to
Zimmermann’s work on behalf of Carlson’s interests, and Zimmermann
did not object to Carlson’s characterization of events. (GE 31, at
A-85.) Instead, he acknowledged receipt of the money and discussed
32
what steps he took to try to get Carlson’s rezoning request
approved. (Id.)
As to Count 2, Zimmermann accepted $1,200 cash from Carlson in
the context of a meeting concerning zoning and the Village Market.
As to Count 3, which was a $1,000 payment Zimmermann accepted from
Carlson at Zimmermann’s home on August 31, 2005, Carlson explicitly
linked the payment to Zimmermann’s actions: “That's for getting us
the zoning over there. Okay?” (GE 40, at A-125.) Zimmermann
responded, “Alright.” (Id.)
Further, when FBI agents confronted Zimmermann about the
payments, he lied. He denied receiving them, then denied having
spent them. In fact, Zimmermann had spent a vast majority of the
money on personal expenses and did not report the money to his
campaign treasurer. His false statements show consciousness of
guilt, see United States v. Clark, 45 F.3d 1247, 1251 (8th Cir.
1995), and his failure to disclose the payments shows that they
were never understood by Zimmermann to be ordinary campaign
contributions or otherwise lawful payments. Thus, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the government, as this
Court must, the cash payments Zimmermann accepted from Carlson –
that is, the $5,000 gratuity (Count 1), the $1,200 gratuity (Count
2), and the $1,000 gratuity (Count 3) – were clearly intended to
be, and were understood by Zimmermann to be, gratuities for
Zimmerman’s official acts as a City Councilman. It is irrelevant
8
Although somewhat besides the point, Zimmermann’s claim that
he would have supported Carlson’s project and rezoning application
irrespective of any payment is contradicted by Zimmermann’s own
actions. If Zimmermann had truly favored Carlson’s rezoning
proposal for its merit, Zimmermann would have voted for it.
Instead, when presented with the opportunity on July 23, 2005,
Zimmermann voted to deny Carlson’s request. (7:5.)
33
that Zimmermann would have supported Carlson’s agenda irrespective
of the corrupt gratuities.8
Zimmermann’s convictions should be affirmed.
II. THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT A REASONABLE JURY TO
CONCLUDE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ZIMMERMANN WAS NOT
ENTRAPPED
Zimmermann next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the jury’s rejection of his entrapment defense. Because
this is a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, this Court must “‘view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the government,
resolving conflicts in the government’s favor, and accepting all
reasonable inferences that support the verdict.’” United States v.
Hamilton, 332 F.3d 1144, 1148 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting United
States v. Washington, 318 F.3d 845, 852 (8th Cir. 2003)).
To demonstrate entrapment,
“[T]he evidence must clearly have indicated that a
government agent originated the criminal design; that the
agent implanted in the mind of an innocent person the
disposition to commit the offense; and that the defendant
then committed the criminal act at the urging of the
government agent.”
United States v. Kummer, 15 F.3d 1455, 1459 (8th Cir. 1994)
(quoting United States v. Shaw, 570 F.2d 770, 772 (8th Cir. 1978)).
34
This Court has explained:
As an affirmative defense, entrapment is a question of
fact generally left to the jury. United States v.
Coleman, 284 F.3d 892, 894 (8th Cir. 2002). A defendant
alleging entrapment, however, is not entitled to an
entrapment instruction unless “sufficient evidence exists
from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment.”
United States v. Neal, 990 F.2d 355, 357 (8th Cir. 1993).
This requires a defendant to show “that the government
agents implanted the criminal design in [his] mind[ ] and
induced [him] to commit the offense.” United States v.
Cannon, 88 F.3d 1495, 1504 (8th Cir. 1996). If a
defendant can produce sufficient evidence of inducement,
then the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to
commit the crime. United States v. Berg, 178 F.3d 976,
980 (8th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Eldeeb, 20
F.3d 841, 843 (8th Cir.1994) (“It is clear that when
entrapment is an issue, the government must prove the
absence of entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt.”). “If
the defendant exhibits any predisposition to engage in
the criminal conduct, the district court need not
instruct the jury on entrapment.” Id.
United States v. Kendrick, 423 F.3d 803, 807 (8th Cir. 2005).
In Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992), the
Supreme Court recognized the balance that must be struck between
the difficulties of enforcing laws and the government’s use of
informants. The Supreme Court stated,
[T]here can be no dispute that the Government may use
undercover agents to enforce the law. “It is well
settled that the fact that officers or employees of the
Government merely afford opportunities or facilities for
the commission of the offense does not defeat the
prosecution. Artifice and stratagem may be employed to
catch those engaged in criminal enterprises.”
Id. (quoting Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 441 (1932)).
The Court simply cautioned that “[i]n their zeal to enforce the
law, however, Government agents may not originate a criminal
35
design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to
commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so
that the Government may prosecute.” Id.
The Supreme Court instructed that, when the government induces
a defendant to commit a crime, the government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the
criminal act before the government intervened. Id. The Eighth
Circuit has summarized the gravamen of entrapment as follows: “The
critical question for us to consider is whether the defendant was
predisposed to committing the crime independent of the government's
meddling.” United States v. Brooks, 215 F.3d 842, 845 (8th Cir.
2000) (citing Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 549; see also Sorrells, 287
U.S. at 451 (holding controlling question in entrapment defense is
“whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the
Government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the
product of the creative activity of its own officials.”)).
In this case, the jury was instructed as follows:
One of the issues relating to Counts 1, 2, and 3 is
whether the Defendant was entrapped.
If the Defendant was entrapped, he must be found not
guilty. The Government has the burden of proving beyond
a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was not entrapped.
If the Defendant before contact with law enforcement
officers or their agents did not have any intent or
disposition to commit the crime charged and was induced
or persuaded by the officers or their agents to commit
that crime, then he was entrapped. On the other hand, if
the Defendant before contact with officers or their
agents did have an intent or disposition to commit the
crime charged, then he was not entrapped, even though the
officers or agents provided a favorable opportunity to
36
commit the crime or made committing the crime easier or
even participated in acts essential to the crime.
(Final Jury Instruction No. 14.)
The evidence in the light most favorable to the government
shows that before any contact with government agents, and,
therefore, before any contact by a government agent, Zimmermann had
the intent to solicit bribes or gratuities in exchange for his
actions as a City Councilman. Therefore, he was not entrapped, and
his final sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim must fail.
The evidence shows that, prior to Carlson becoming a
cooperating witness, Zimmermann approached him and asked for a
$100,000 contribution to pay toward Zimmermann’s legal bill.
(2:155.) When Carlson offered to call Zimmermann’s attorney to
negotiate a lower fee, Zimmermann balked. Instead, he immediately
reduced the amount he was requesting by $60,000 and indicated
payment was urgent. (Id.) In response to Zimmermann’s improper
solicitation, Carlson reported the incident to the FBI and agreed
to cooperate further. (5:49.)
In addition, the evidence showed that Zimmermann solicited a
gratuity from another developer a year earlier. (GE 2, at A-1-2.)
Although Zimmermann was acquitted of Count 4, which charged that he
solicited a free retaining wall in exchange for taking official
Zoning and Planning Committee action, evidence of the solicitation
should be considered by this Court in its review of Zimmermann’s
entrapment claim. See United States v. Long, 952 F.2d 1520, 1525
37
(8th Cir. 1991) (stating reviewing court must consider all evidence
presented at trial, even evidence relating to counts on which the
jury did not convict).
In October of 2004, a not-for-profit group, Powderhorn
Residents Group, was developing townhomes in Zimmermann’s ward.
(1:30, 34.) Part of Powderhorn Residents Group’s funding came from
the City. (Id. at 40.) Part of the funding agreement required the
City’s approval following an inspection to ensure that the group
used the City’s monies in the manner it indicated it would when it
initially secured the financing. (Id.) The townhomes were not
allowed to be occupied until the City had inspected the property
and issued a Certificate of Completion, signed by two members of
the City Council. (Id.)
When the project was nearing completion, Kathy Wetzel-Mastel,
a project manager for the Powderhorn Residents Group, sent
Zimmermann an email requesting that he sign the Certificate of
Completion and obtain the second required signature, as well. (Id.
at 41-42; GE 2.) In lieu of simply responding to Ms. Wetzel-
Mastel’s request, Zimmermann asked whether the group could
construct the same retaining wall used on the project or at least
supply the materials for the wall free of charge on a third party’s
nearby home. (1:43.) Ms. Wetzel-Mastel testified that such a
retaining wall would be worth approximately $3,000, and Zimmermann
was found not guilty of soliciting a gratuity in violation of 18
38
U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B). Nevertheless, the incident shows that even
before Carlson and Zimmermann met, Zimmermann was illegally
soliciting gratuities from constituents. In short, Zimmermann
needed no inducement on the part of the government.
Even after Carlson began to contact Zimmermann at the behest
of government agents, Zimmermann’s recorded conduct reflects his
own culpable disposition. In the first recorded conversation,
after discussing Carlson’s need for assistance, Carlson simply asks
the open-ended question, “What can I do to help you?” (GE 16, at
A-7.) In reply, Zimmermann says, “Money, money, money.” (Id.).
Zimmermann also instructed Carlson as to how to avoid campaign
finance rules, further demonstrating predisposition to engage in
illegal conduct. The fact Zimmermann did not submit any of the
cash he received from Carlson to his campaign treasurer, likewise,
shows predisposition to take illegal gratuities and undermines
Zimmermann’s argument on appeal that the payments were nothing more
than violations of campaign finance rules.
Each of the videotaped transactions of the hand-to-hand
payments shows that Zimmermann readily accepted Carlson’s money,
and Zimmermann never questioned nor attempted to correct Carlson’s
characterizations of the payments as rewards for Zimmermann’s
support. Similarly, each of the payments was made in the context
of discussions about official city business. What is more,
Zimmermann’s lies to FBI agents on September 8, 2005 show his
39
guilty conscience and, consequently, his predisposition to commit
the crimes charged. He demonstrated through his lies that he knew
his actions were unlawful; yet, he accepted three separate payments
from Carlson and attempted to hide this fact from the FBI.
In short, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the government and giving the government the benefit of all
reasonable inferences, there is substantial evidence that Carlson
did not induce Zimmermann to commit the offenses of conviction.
Further, there is substantial evidence supporting the government's
proof that Zimmermann was predisposed to commit the offenses.
Accordingly, Zimmermann’s conviction should be affirmed on these
grounds, as well.
III.THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT
LIMITED ZIMMERMANN TO CALLING 8 OF HIS 13 PROPOSED WITNESSES
TO TESTIFY THAT ZIMMERMANN NEVER SOUGHT A GRATUITY FROM THEM
Zimmermann lastly argues that the district court erred when it
limited him to calling eight of his proposed thirteen witnesses,
each of whom would have testified as to their dealings with
Zimmermann as a member of the City Council and, specifically, as to
his service on their behalf without soliciting a gratuity. It is
settled law that the trial court has broad discretion to limit the
number of witnesses a party may call, particularly on a single
point in issue. See United States v. Koessel, 706 F.2d 271, 275
(8th Cir. 1983). Thus, challenges to such evidentiary rulings are
for abuse of discretion and are subject to harmless error review.
40
United States v. Johnson, 463 F.3d 803, 808 (8th Cir. 2006). “The
test for harmless error is whether the erroneous evidentiary ruling
had a substantial influence on the jury's verdict.” United States
v. Lupino, 301 F.3d 642, 645 (8th Cir. 2002).
Excluding himself, Zimmermann called sixteen witnesses during
his eight-day trial. Of those, eight were called to testify as to
their experiences with Zimmermann as a City Councilman and he never
solicited a gratuity from them. Indeed, the trial court
appropriately characterized these witnesses as “constituent-
related.” (6:197.) After calling five of these constituent-
related witnesses, the government asked the district court to limit
the number of such witnesses as irrelevant and cumulative. (Id. at
32.) The district court heard argument from both sides and,
thereafter, allowed three additional constituent-related witnesses,
for a total of eight such witnesses, finding that this limitation
was in the interest of judicial economy. (Id. at 35.)
Thereafter, the district court allowed Zimmermann to make an
offer of proof as to what the additional five witnesses would have
testified. (Id. at 194-197.) The district court upheld its
earlier ruling and limited Zimmermann to calling eight total
constituent-related witnesses, each of whom would have testified
that they dealt with Zimmermann in his official capacity and that
he never solicited a bribe or gratuity from them. (Id. at 194-97.)
The district court noted, too, that Zimmermann chose the eight
9
While he complains on appeal about not being allowed to call
each of his thirteen constituent-related witnesses, at the time of
the district court’s ruling, Zimmermann was unsure whether he
intended to call each of the five who were not permitted to
testify. (6:196.)
41
witnesses he called, without any coercion or limitation by the
district court. (Id. at 199.) Thus, Zimmermann was allowed to
call his eight strongest witnesses, all of whom discussed their
personal experiences with Zimmermann and testified he did not
solicit gratuities from them.9
Thus, Zimmermann must concede that he was allowed to present
the testimony of eight witnesses who each testified that Zimmermann
never sought a gratuity from them. The proposition that defense
was trying to elicit through their testimony – that Zimmermann
provided constituent services without seeking a gratuity – was in
evidence for the jury’s consideration. Thirteen witnesses, rather
than eight, simply could not have made Zimmermann’s point any more
persuasive. Consequently, this claim should be rejected and
Zimmermann’s request for a new trial should be denied.
42
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District
Court should be affirmed.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The undersigned attorney for the United States certifies this
brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 32. The brief has 1107 lines of monospaced
type. The brief was prepared using WordPerfect X3. The
undersigned attorney also certifies that the computer diskette
containing the full text of the Brief of Appellee has been scanned
for viruses and to the best of our ability and technology, believes
it is virus-free.
Dated: June 8, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
RACHEL K. PAULOSE
United States Attorney
BY: Lisa D. Kirkpatrick
Assistant U.S. Attorney
600 U.S. Courthouse
300 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Attorneys for Appellee

Dean Zimmermann Case Goes Before U.S. 8th Circuit Appeals Court

2007-10-03T21:52:00.000-07:00

To hear both arguments go HERE

Click on "Oral Arguments" on the sidebar.

Click on "Case Number"

Type in 07-1062

Direct link:

ftp://8cc-www.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio/2007/9/071062.mp3

Here is about 9 minutes of the Government's argument:

Craig Cox Attacks Liz McLemore in Harvard Nieman Reports

2007-09-29T17:50:00.000-07:00

During the Zimmermann trial, the editor of the Twin Cities Daily Planet, Craig Cox asked if he could re-publish Liz McLemore's notes on all 8 days of the Zimmermann trial (Liz McLemore's notes are linked on the sidebar).

I was shocked to learn many months later that Craig Cox attacked Liz McLemore by name in a journalism review as an example of what had gone wrong with the TCDP's experiment in citizen journalism.

You can read Craig Cox's article in Harvard's Nieman Reports.

It starts off this way:

Late in July, when a former member of the Minneapolis City Council went on trial in a high-profile bribery case, I received an e-mail from a local community activist alerting me to a woman who was determined to sit through the entire proceedings and describe the finer points of a trial that was headline news in the Twin Cities media.

The former member of the Mpls City Council was Dean Zimmermann. The "activist' is me and Cox fails to mention that I was an "editor" at the TCDP. Failing to mention Zimmermann and myself by name, Cox goes on to name Liz McLemore:

I dashed off an e-mail to the blogger, a south Minneapolis political activist named Liz McLemore, and asked her if she would allow me to publish her courtroom chronicles for our Daily Planet readers.

...what follows is a bizarre, vicious attack on Liz McLemore:

The McLemore "scoop" is an object lesson in the way citizen journalists can captivate and confound editors trying to build and maintain the credibility of their publications while encouraging ordinary citizens to tell their story. Captive to the vagaries of personal schedules, political biases, and reportorial limitations, these amateur reporters can require delicate handling even as they bring greater passion than many veterans.

... Cox didn't contact either me or Liz McLemore before he wrote his screed. Liz McLemore and I contacted the editor of the Nieman Reports and she apologized for allowing Cox to slime Liz McLemore and posted McLemore's response on the Nieman Report site. McLemore sets the record straight and concludes with this:

But what of Cox's own lapses in the very article in which he reports mine? Cox explains that for many people, "the media remains a monolithic, authoritarian machine that holds little interest or importance in their daily lives." Perhaps this is one reason that so many have turned to bloggers. To regain a position of importance in our lives, the media must earn it. At the very least, the public has a right to demand that professional journalists adhere to the standards of truth, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, and fairness. I expect nothing less from Craig Cox. Too bad he has failed to deliver it.

Craig Cox is no longer the editor at the TCDP. The new editor Mary Turck has taken over Cox's job of recruiting citizen journalists for TCDP. Turck recently yanked and re-wrote an article (after it was criticized by Mayor Rybak's flak-catcher).

Cox continues to cross-post political gossip from his Minneapolis Observer Ballot Box blog to his TCDP blog.

Craig Cox got himself into some hot water when he penned a nasty political hit piece on his Mpls Observer blog and cross-posted it to the TCDP blog. Shortly afterward, Cox's name was scrubbed from 6 CD candidate Bob Hill's web site.

Apparently, TCDP editor Mary Turck forwarded some e-mails complaining about Cox's attack piece and Cox promptly published excerpts from the private e-mails with caustic commentary on his blog:

“There are three parts to this allegation, none of which are true,” Carlson wrote in an e-mail that landed in our e-mail box this afternoon. It had been forwarded by Mary Turck, editor of the Twin Cities Daily Planet, which also carries our commentary. Carlson did not elaborate.

That was followed by a more emphatic rant by another Olson volunteer, Tom Beckfeld (another refugee from the Hill campaign), who called our analysis of the situation “false to the point of slander” and added that he was “personally involved in this story and helped recruit Olson for the 6th.”

I wrote an e-mail on the 26th to Mary Turck asking if the TCDP would continue to publish Craig Cox... no reply yet.

Rachel Paulose Flunks Internal Justice Department Audit

2007-09-23T11:29:00.000-07:00

WaPo:

...an internal Justice Department audit completed last month said her employees gave her very low marks, alleging that she treats subordinates harshly and lacks the requisite experience for the job, said several sources familiar with the audit. Her performance review was so poor that Kenneth E. Melson, head of the department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, took the unusual step of meeting with her in Minnesota several weeks ago, two sources said.

...and:

"It's just one thing after another," said one Minneapolis lawyer and former federal prosecutor, who did not want to be identified because of regular dealings with Paulose's office. "I think a lot of people in the office were hoping for some oversight to change things. But right now people are just hunkering down and hoping they can survive another year or so and salvage their careers."

...and:

David Schultz, who teaches law at the University of Minnesota and business administration at Hamline University in St. Paul, said: "A lot of this stuff appears to go beyond the U.S. attorneys' issue and is just about her unprofessionalism. The real complaint may just be that she's a political hack who just isn't qualified to manage the office."

...this is awful, embarrassing... Rachel Paulose should resign as soon as possible.

But, before she does, Paulose should release the Zimmermann tapes.

Ellison, Conyers Demand Documents About Paulose and Heffelfinger

2007-09-20T13:13:00.000-07:00

Eric Black:

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison of Minneapolis and House Judiciary Chair John Conyers have moments ago sent a letter to the acting U.S. attorney general demanding all communications from the staff of the Minnesota U.S. attorneys office to the Justice Department about Rachel Paulose’s management of the office, documents relating to the evaluations of her predecessor, Tom Heffelfinger that might shed light on why he was on a list of U.S. attorneys to be fired, and all documents reflecting the search for Heffelfinger’s replacement, which led to the appointment of Paulose.

Goodling gone... Gonzo gone... Paulose going soon?

Gary Carlson Sued by Star Tribune Reporter

2007-09-19T21:43:00.000-07:00

Rochelle Olson in the Strib:

Star Tribune reporter sues, says man he tried to interview nearly ran him over

Star Tribune reporter Paul McEnroe filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court seeking more than $50,000 from a man he says nearly ran him down as he tried to interview him in 2005 about a Minneapolis City Hall bribery investigation.

As McEnroe approached Gary A. Carlson, who was in a pickup truck, Carlson accelerated and "caused the outside mirror" to "violently collide" with McEnroe's body. Carlson left the scene and failed to provide any assistance, the lawsuit said.

The matter was investigated by police, but no charges were filed, according to McEnroe's lawyer Fred Pritzker.

The reporter, who was out of the country and unavailable for comment Wednesday, suffered injuries to his left shoulder and arm as well as "emotional distress," the suit said.

At the time of the incident, Carlson was the CEO of the Chicago Commons Corp. and was involved in the investigation of Dean Zimmermann, a Minneapolis City Council member at the time.

Zimmermann, a Green Party member, is serving 2½ years in prison for bribery. He was convicted of taking three bribes totaling $7,200 from Carlson, who testified at the trial that the FBI had wired him with sound and video equipment.

The Strib published many puff pieces about Zimmermann and his bogus Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) boondoggle. After Zimmermann was convicted, the Strib ran an editorial asking the judge not to send Zimmermann to jail.

On the eve of the trial, the Strib published an article that painted an unflattering portrait of Gary Carlson.

Now, he is being harrassed with this lawsuit.

What did Gary Carlson do to deserve this treatment?

Rachel Paulose Investigated by Office of Special Counsel

2007-09-18T08:04:00.000-07:00

Another Eric Black scoop :

The federal Office of Special Counsel is investigating allegations that Rachel Paulose, U.S. attorney for Minnesota, mishandled classified information, decided to fire the subordinate who called it to her attention, retaliated against others in the office who crossed her, and made racist remarks about one employee.

The allegations:

*As U.S. attorney, Paulose received regular reports about the status of the war on terror, drawing on up-to-date information assembled by intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The reports, classified “secret,” were supposed to kept locked up. For about a year, Paulose regularly left the reports loose in her office, sometimes unattended, where they could have been seen by unauthorized people. Marti spoke to her about it and, as required by regulations, filed a report with the national office that oversees U.S. attorneys.

Paulose began threatening Marti with the loss of his position as the No. 2 attorney in the office. He heard from colleagues and even from a federal judge that Paulose was bad-mouthing him, making false allegations against him and telling them that she was going to replace him.

*Paulose committed large and small acts of retaliation against others in the office whom she accused of disloyalty to her. In one instance, after changing the job assignment of one employee, Paulose allegedly said that she would make the woman so miserable that she would want to quit. In some instances, Paulose allegedly ordered those in charge of performing job evaluations to downgrade the reviews of those she considered disloyal, or turned down requests that they be allowed to perform work outside the office. The allegation is that Paulose took these actions against employees for reasons other than the quality of their work, but rather for offenses like advising her that some actions she was contemplating would exceed her legal authority.

*Paulose allegedly denigrated one employee of the office, using the terms “fat,” “black,” “lazy” and “ass.”

Paulose has got to go.

Erase All Doubts, Release Zimmermann Tapes

2007-07-30T20:00:00.000-07:00

Star Tribune LTE:

Nearly a year ago, former Minneapolis Councilmember Dean Zimmermann was convicted on three counts of bribery. To this day, many of Zimmermann's supporters claim he is innocent, even though audio and videotapes presented at the trial clearly showed him soliciting and accepting large amounts of cash.

The U.S. Department of Justice did not release those tapes to the media at the conclusion of the trial. The tapes were shown in open court and are part of the public record. Similar FBI tapes showing public officials accepting bribes have been released to the media.

Zimmermann's supporters have said that then-U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Docherty, the FBI, the judge and jury were part of a conspiracy to "frame" Zimmermann. Some supporters have even conjured a conspiracy that involved Zimmermann's opponent in the last election and even DFL Party officials.

Recent allegations that other federal investigations and prosecutions may have been politically motivated lend credence to those claims. Those allegations have eroded public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the U.S. Department of Justice.

I believe allowing citizens to view the evidence that convicted Zimmermann would help restore some of that lost confidence. The anniversary of Zimmermann's conviction would be an opportune moment for the government to release those tapes.

KEN AVIDOR, MINNEAPOLIS

Eric Black: "Putdown for Paulose"

2007-06-21T08:40:00.000-07:00

Eric Black (now at Minnesota Monitor) has the scoop:

Rachel Paulose, the embattled U.S. attorney for Minnesota, suffered through an awkward moment Tuesday when a retirement party for a long-serving prosecutor in her office turned into a thunderous ovation for several of Paulose's severest critics. Word of the incident has buzzed through the Twin Cities federal legal community and become the latest symbol of a very rough 18 months since Paulose took over the top federal law enforcement job in Minnesota.

Will Paulose get the message or will Minnesota's kick-boxing USA keep fighting to save her job?

Gary Dean Zimmmermann Still Asking for the "Money, Money, Money"

2007-06-06T06:24:00.000-07:00

The following letter was posted on David Shove's Progressive Calendar. Jenny Heiser, Dean Zimmermann's attack-wife implores the Zimmer-cult to wish her husband, Dean Zimmermann a happy birthday (and give Dean gifts and more “money, money, money”:

From: Jenny Heiser
Subject: Dean Z birthday 6.06

Dean's 65th birthday is next Wednesday, June 6. I know he'd love to
receive a greeting from you, even if it gets there a day or two late.
Here's his address:

Gary D. Zimmermann, #12696-041
FCI Englewood/Satellite Camp
9595 W. Quincy Ave
Littleton, CO 80123

In mid-April I was able to travel to Littleton, CO to visit with Dean.He's lost over 25 lbs. and looks fine. More on this visit in another message.

Here's the address for a web-blog created by friends for Dean. Feel free to post a message, I'll send them to him at least once a week.

Reading is a major pastime for Dean. Here's a link to a reading "Wish List" that his brother, Joel, created for Dean in case you'd Amazon.com to send him a book (HYPERLINK) It would be best to let Amazon send him the book you choose because of very stringent prison rules around what Dean can receive and the packaging he can receive books in.)

Dean is earning approximately $25/month. This just covers his expenses related to correspondence. His phone cards cost him $90/month. He'd love to purchase a radio from the prison commissary (no, you nor I can send him a radio). If you feel so moved, please consider contributing to his legal defense fund to help cover these costs, and either David Tilsen or Scott Cramer will see that your contribution gets put into Dean's prison commissary account:

Zimmermann for Justice
c/o David Tilsen
3220-10th Ave So
Mpls, MN 55407

Please feel free to share this information with others. More in another message with information about what you need to do if you think you'll be in the Denver area this summer or fall and wish to visit with Dean.

Love & peace to all!

Jenny

Jenny Heiser & Dean Zimmermann
2200 Clinton Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55404-3655

This is likely the first of many attempts we'll see to rehabilitate Gary Dean Zimmermann's image. No doubt, the Zimmer-cult is encouraged by the fact that U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose refuses to give the FBI tapes shown in open court to the media. Those tapes would dispel any doubt that Zimmermann is guilty of soliciting and accepting bribes from a Hummer-driving developer who raised money for Senator Norm Coleman.

In other news, Zimmermann's PRT pod pal, Rep. Mark Olson's trial for domestic assault has been postponed (again) to July.

US Attorney Scandal Comes to Big Lake, Minnesota

2007-05-31T06:23:00.000-07:00

This is cross-posted at Dump Mark Olson

Tom Hamburger of the LA Times reveals "part of the reason" why Tom Heffelfinger ended up on the DOJ's list of US Attorneys to be fired:

But newly obtained documents and interviews suggest that what displeased some of his superiors and GOP politicians was narrower and more politically charged -- his actions on Indian voting.

... in particular:

Described as a matter of "deep concern" to Heffelfinger, the issue arose from Kiffmeyer's directive in the fall of 2004 that tribal ID cards could not be used for voter identification off reservations

Kiffmeyer is now involved in a national scandal. If Kiffmeyer ran in a special election, it is likely that she would have to answer questions about her involvement in the GOP's campaign to disenfranchise minority voters.

If Mary Kiffmeyer cannot run for office because of her role in the US Attorney scandal, that may explain why the MN GOP 6CD Chair has gone from "no comment" on Rep Mark Olson to whitewashing Olson's Wikipedia page. Olson's trial for domestic assault is scheduled for ~~June 7th~~ (Correction: Rep. Mark Olson's Trial is Monday, June 4th)

Olson may have his own connection to the US Attorney scandal. Olson worked closely with Gary Dean Zimmermann promoting PRT legislation at the Capitol and at Minneapolis City Hall. It's very likely that e-mails to and from Olson and other GOP politicos turned up on Zimmermann's computer which was seized in a raid on Zimmermann's house only four months before Heffelfinger announced he was going to resign.

David Strom and Katherine Kersten Whine About Rachel Paulose

2007-05-30T07:30:00.000-07:00

Katherine Kersten was invited on David Strom's Taxpayer League radio show Tuesday, May 29th to talk about Rachel Paulose and the U.S. Attorney scandal.

There's no mention of the AUSA's at the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's office who demoted themselves in protest of Paulose's lack of management skills.

Here's an excerpt of the interview:

Hear the entire podcast HERE.

Timeline Update--Heffelfinger Cancelled Press Conference on Zimmermann

2007-05-25T20:52:00.000-07:00

According to then Fifth Congressional District Green Party chair Steven Eisenmenger:

Eisenmenger said two members of the Zimmermann campaign were subpoenaed to testify Monday before a Hennepin County grand jury, but were told Friday their appearances had been cancelled. He also questioned why U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger cancelled a Friday press conference where he was to release a statement on the case. “He should hand down an indictment or close the investigation,” Eisenmenger said. “It’s well within a citizen’s right to make this reasonable request in asking for that.”

Why did Heffelfinger cancel his press conference?

Did the raid on Zimmermann's house yield information that complicated the investigation?

Were there any e-mails to prominent Republicans on Zimmermann's hard drive that could have gotten Heffelfinger into trouble with loyal Bushie Monica "Buzzsaw" Goodling?

Did Republicans Fund MN Green Party Senate Candidate in 2002?

2007-05-25T17:57:00.000-07:00

From a comment on TPM Muckraker:

The third issue is much less direct -- it was about Rove pushing money through Norm Coleman's campaign in 2002 to support the Green Party Native American Candidate in the Wellstone-Coleman race in 2002. (The Greens ultimately settled this by defeating their own candidate in the September 2002 primary). But it was hot news in the summer of 2002 that Rove was spending money through Coleman to support someone who might fool progressives, and take votes away from Wellstone. At the time it was a big issue, Heffelfinger did comment that he might investigate the matter of Coleman's campaign funds being used for two candidates and two parties -- but it never went beyond that. Again, that probably alienated Rove who was shoveling in the campaign cash.

Really!!!???!!!

I never heard that Republicans were funding Ed "Eagle Man" McGaa or that Tom Heffelfinger said anything about it... but, it would make sense in light of what was revealed during the Zimmermann trial.

For me and other former Greens, Ed McGaa's endorsement was when we realized that something was terribly wrong with the MN Green Party:

But my dissatisfaction with the Greens grew. The watershed moment, in retrospect, was the Green Party convention in 2002 where the party nominated Ed McGaa when clearly he had no credentials as a Green Party member or a Senate candidate. We know how that story turned out. The Green's gubernatorial candidate, Ken Pentel, had to publicly pull his support from McGaa when the truth came out about McGaa's "green" philosophy, which included burying toxic sludge on his home reservation for a price.

... and Zimmermann supported McGaa...

But Dean Zimmermann, 6th Ward Minneapolis City Council member and a Green Party member, said that Wellstone is responsible for collecting his votes, not the Green Party.

"They can't take votes away from (Wellstone) ... They're not his votes," Zimmermann said.

So, were the Republicans paying MN Green Party candidates back in 2002? It wouldn't surprise me... here's a few examples from that era of Republicans shoveling money at Green Party candidates:

Republican Offers $100K Bribe to NM Greens - Was It Tom Delay?

Green Party Candidate Finds He's a Republican Pawn   

The Paulose Puzzle - Three Timelines Offer Clues

2007-05-11T08:10:00.000-07:00

Why did former U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger resign and why did Rachel Paulose replace him?

Although Heffelfinger insists he left voluntarily, it seems very likely he jumped before he was pushed.

We know the assistant U.S. attorneys he left behind are very unhappy working for Paulose. But, with the exception of a recent open letter complaining about Paulose, they haven't given the media any clues why Heffelfinger was removed and replaced with the boss from hell.

In every mystery, there's a motive.

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate explains the reason for what happened in U.S. Attorney offices across the country:

There is only one narrative that works with the facts. The White House wanted party loyalists placed in either key battleground states, or in states where Republicans were being investigated or they thought Democrats should have been.

If that's so, Heffelfinger should have been popular at the White House, because he successfully prosecuted Democrats such as former Minneapolis City Council members Brian Heron, Joe Biernat, and Loren Jennings, a former state representative.

With that motive in mind, let's take a look at some timelines and see if they point to an answer.

Ed Felein, the editor and publisher of Pulse of the Twin Cities published a timeline in his publication PULSE last week:

Sept. 16, 2005--"What did Dean do wrong?" by Ed Felien. Analysis of the "case" against [then] Minneapolis Council Member Dean Zimmerman.

Aug. 16, 2006--In the wake of "Zimmergate," commentator David Tilsen discusses how he believes former City Council Member Dean Zimmerman was set up, and Tilsen gives advice to anti-establishment leaders.

Zimmermann was anything but anti-establishment. Zimmermann was a one-stop-shop for political favors and corruption in Minneapolis.

Ed Felein is Zimmermann's friend and one of the few people in this town besides David Tilsen who defended Zimmermann in print after his conviction. For Felein and Tilsen, Heffelfinger is the villain. That is probably why the Pulse has ignored the scandal surrounding Paulose.

Another of Zimmermann's friends and supporters is Charley Underwood, the head of the DFL Progressive Caucus and a blogger at Mn Blue. Underwood, who has attacked Rep. Keith Ellison for what he perceives as a betrayal of the anti-war movement, has forgiven his friend Zimmmermann of any wrongdoing.

For Felein, Tilsen and Underwood, Heffelfinger, is the bad guy; a Bush appointee that investigated and indicted Zimmermann, their friend.

Eric Pusey at Mn Blue has posted a timeline of the U.S. Attorney scandal that avoids mentioning Heffelfinger's prosecution of Zimmermann.

One of the facts that Pusey states as reason for Heffelfinger's dismissal is that he was a "moderate".

But if Heffelfinger was a moderate, that would make him one of the good guys, right? Hefelfinger wasn't a "loyal Bushie" like Paulose. This is what Pusey thinks his timeline proves:

It's clear that Heffelfinger would not cooperate in 2008 when the Bush Administration would want some voter suppression to occur in urban, minority areas ... areas that would likely vote against Norm. The Bush Administration considers Minnesota a key battleground state. Hell, they're holding their convention here to help out Norm Coleman in his reelection bid. Rachel Paulose, a trusted neo-con, will do the Bush Administration's bidding unquestioningly, whatever it happens to be.

Pusey could be right. It's also possible that Heffelfinger's dismissal had something to do with the Abramoff scandal.

But, Zimmmermann's reported ties to at least two prominent Republican donors (and politicians) and his possible ties to others suggests that Heffelfinger chose to leave rather than face Monica Goodling's buzzsaw during the crucial 2006 election year.

What did the FBI find in the raid on Zimmemrmann's house in September of 2005?

Did they find e-mails to and from Republican donors and politicians on Zimmermann's hard drive?

Why won't Rachel Paulose release the FBI tapes shown in open court of Zimmermann accepting bribes from Gary Carlson? Is it because Carlson held a fundraiser for Senator Norm Coleman?

Read the Minneapolis Confidential Mn DOJ timeline and see what you think.

Heffelfinger, Paulose Minnesota U.S. Attorney Timeline

2007-05-10T09:57:00.000-07:00

Heffelfinger, Paulose Minnesota U.S. Attorney Timeline

(With special attention to Minneapolis public corruption investigations)

September 1991: April 1993: Thomas B. Heffelfinger's first term as United States Attorney, District of Minnesota (appointed by President George H. W. Bush).

July 17, 2001: Minneapolis city council members Brian Herron indicted (taped by FBI accepting $10,000 bribe). Herron pleaded guilty and resigned.

September 2001: Tom Heffelfinger appointed by President George W. Bush to a second term as US Attorney for the District of Minnesota.

Nov. 7, 2001: R.T. Rybak and Zimmermann elected. Rybak campaigned with a gigantic green air freshener stating how city hall needed to have its air freshened with reform and a return to ethical standards of practice by its elected officials.

November 21, 2002: Councilman Joe Biernat convicted of five felony charges related to allegations he received free plumbing work in exchange for a vote.

September 9, 2004: Mayor RT Rybak casts his only veto in favor a Basim Sabri's development. Zimmermann also supports Basim Sabri's project.

December 2005: Basim Sabri convicted of three counts of bribery for trying to pay former City Council Member Brian Herron to help him with a controversial project on Lake Street.

May 18, 2005: FBI agents meet with a cooperating witness (Gary Carlson) about Zimmermann.

May ? 2005: In an FBI tape, Carlson mentioned he had recently had a fundraiser for Norm Coleman at his house; Zimmermann chided Carlson for not inviting him. Carlson replied by saying he didn't think Zimmermann [as a Green] would want to attend a Republican fundraiser.

Zimmermann responded by saying, "Liberals, Greens, Democrats, Republicans…it's all money."

August 31, 2005: Zimmermann meets with Carlson at his home. Zimmermann receives an envelope that contains $1000 in the form of 10 $100 bills, given to Carlson by the FBI. Zimmermann asks Carlson to contribute money to another Green candidate, Dave Bicking. Zimmermann also boasts of having forced a primary with a "straw man".

September 9, 2005: FBI agents confront Zimmermann with video and audio evidence of bribery. Zimmemrmnann lies and refuses to admit wrongdoing. Zimmermann's house searched. Investigation announced.

September 11, 2005: Fifth Congressional District Green Party chair Steven Eisenmenger) claims USA Tom Heffelfinger canceled press conference:

Eisenmenger said two members of the Zimmermann campaign were subpoenaed to testify Monday before a Hennepin County grand jury, but were told Friday their appearances had been cancelled. He also questioned why U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger cancelled a Friday press conference where he was to release a statement on the case.

Jan. 9, 2006: Kyle Sampson memo to White House Counsel Harriet Miers: proposed working with "targeted U.S. Attorneys to encourage them to leave government service voluntarily; this would allow (them) to make arrangements for work in the private sector and `save face' regarding the reason for leaving office, both in the Department of Justice and in their local legal communities." (Nick Coleman, Star Tribune 4/1/07)

January 18, 2006: Former city councilman Dean Zimmermann indicted.

Feb. 14, 2006: Tom Heffelfinger, announced his resignation (effective Feb. 28, 2006).

Feb. 17, 2006: Paulose was named to be the interim US Attorney.

April 14th, 2006 memo from Kyle Sampson states, "Also, I would note that two on my original list have already resigned" (presumably Heffelfinger and Graves).

August 10, 2006: Zimmermann convicted on 3 counts of accepting cash.

November 7, 2006: DFL candidate for Rebecca Otto claims she was the victim of Green Party dirty tricks in this You Tube video.

December 9, 2006: Rachel Paulose confirmed by unanimous consent in the Senate's last act of the session at 3:00 a.m (Saturday morning)

December 19, 2006: Former Minneapolis Councilman Zimmermann Sentenced to Federal Prison.

March 9, 2007: Rachel Paulose Sworn in as US Attorney fo the District of MInnesota at ceremony at Saint Thomas. - Thomas Heffelfinger, was not invited (Nick Coleman, Star Tribune 4/1/07)

March 21, 2007: City Pages article on flawed research that claimed Mayor Rybak was investigated by Heffelfinger--Heffelfinger says, he cannot comment on investigations that did not result in charges. But it doesn't take a scholar to read between the lines: "Rybak should be pissed off," Heffelfinger says. "That's irresponsible for someone to publish something like that."

April 5, 2007: "...three of her top administrators — First Assistant U.S. Attorney John Marti, second in command; civil division head Erika Monzangue and criminal division head James Lackner — voluntarily resigned those positions, reverting to simple assistant U.S. attorney status, reportedly in protest over Paulose's management style. According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, she was noted for dressing down underlings and quoting Bible verses on the job.

April 7, 2007: Pioneer Press reporter, Ruben Rosario complains that Rachel Paulose doesn't release information... even about "Cubby the Bear" to the press.

On April 17th: The AP reported that Ms. Paulose had been contacted for voluntary questioning by the US House Judiciary Committee in relation to the "firings of 8 U.S. federal prosecutors"

****Zimmermann Trial Facts****

*Gary Dean Zimmermann had a court-appointed attorney.

*Gary Dean Zimmermann still owns property worth $794,500 (according to City records).

*A Star Tribune editorial recommended that Zimmermann receive no jail time.

****More Reference****

TPM US Attorney Scandal Timeline:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/usa-timeline.php

KSTP Coverage of the US Attorney scandal.

FBI Search Affidavit (PDF).

Best & Flannagan Heffelfinger resume.

Zimmermann's sorry environmental record in office.

MnBlue Blog's timeline.

Rachel Paulose, Free Cubby the Bear! (and the Zimmermann trial tapes)

2007-04-24T08:04:00.000-07:00

PiPress reporter Ruben Rosario:

But in the meantime, at the very least, I would settle for knowing what happened to Cubby the Bear.

A federal judge sentenced country music star Troy Gentry to three months of probation and a $15,000 fine earlier this year for improperly tagging the bear after killing it three years ago in an enclosed area near Sandstone, Minn.

There was talk the bear, now government property, would be preserved for educational purposes or exhibited at a museum.

A Pioneer Press courts reporter called two months ago to find out about its fate. The inquiry has gone unanswered. Perhaps it's classified.

Small potatoes, perhaps. But Minnesotans deserve better than this.

Gary Dean Zimmermann Still Owns Property Worth $794,500

2007-04-10T13:52:00.000-07:00

At the time of his trial, Gary Dean Zimmermann had a court-appointed lawyer. Zimmermann claimed he was broke.

According to the City of Minneapolis website, Zimmermann still owns 3 properties worth $794,500. How is that possible?

2200 Clinton Av. S. $226,500

2012 Grand Av. S. $389,500

2416 - 17th Av. S. $178,500

Rachel Paulose and the Zimmermann Tapes

2007-04-10T06:53:00.000-07:00

Reporters and bloggers are trying to figure out why a loyal Bushie was put in charge of the US Attorney's office in Minnesota.

So far they've been looking in all the wrong places.

The question they should be asking is what happened to the investigation of municipal corruption in Minneapolis.

The investigation of Gary Dean Zimmermann should have yielded a treasure trove of information about Zimmmermann and his contacts.... many of them prominent, wealthy and influential right-wing Republicans.

The FBI tapes shown in open court during his trial showed Zimmermann soliciting and accepting large amounts of cash from Gary Carlson who held a fund raiser for Norm Coleman. Zimmermann also lobbied for Crown Hydro, acompany owned by William Hawks who held a fundraiser for Michele Bachmann (special guest Dick Cheney)

Perhaps Zimmermann's computer served up a e-mails to and from prominent Republican politicians and donors. There were a bunch of prominent Republicans promoting PRT and the Taxi 2000 Corporation.

Yesterday I found another prominent Republican donor who for a time was a co-defendant in the Taxi 2000 lawsuit.

Zimmmermann lobbied incessantly for Taxi 2000 while he was in office. I hope that the media takes the time to ask the question fellow Green Party office-holder Annie Young asked back in 2004:

“This is not a Green Party issue; this is Dean’s project. I’m concerned about his relationship to Taxi 2000, and about the time he’s spending on the project and whether he’s meeting the needs of the people in his ward. There are potentially some good things that could come from it, and I see what the point is but I’m not sure the timing is right. There are also a lot of questions about it, like why are the Republicans so interested in it?... "

To learn more about Zimmermann's odd relationship with prominent right-wing Republicans and about the FBI tapes showing Zimmermann requesting and receiving cash bribes from a Hummer-driving Republican developer, read this post at Lloydletta.

Gary Dean Zimmermann Begins His Sentence

2007-01-29T14:45:00.000-08:00

Gary Dean Zimmermann checks into a Federal Correctional Facility in Colorado today.

Zimmermann's supporters still claim he is innocent on the Minneapolis Issues List and on Twin Cities Indymedia.

If Gary Dean Zimmermann did nothing wrong, then the FBI tapes would reveal that. Until those tapes are released, you can read notes on all 8 days of the Zimmermann trial here on the Minneapolis Confidential blog (see sidebar).

Video of Dean Zimmermann Lying to Landlord Group

2006-12-24T08:47:00.000-08:00

Convicted felon Dean Zimmermann tells a bunch of landlords that he is innocent... and they believe him. Compare what he says in the video with the notes of the trial. Links to all 8 days of the trial are on the sidebar.

Zimmermann Sentenced to 2 1/2 Years for Bribery Conviction.

2006-12-23T15:00:00.000-08:00

The Strib:

U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery, in handing down the sentence, said that Zimmermann, 64, can have his sentence reduced by seven months if he completes a drug treatment program. Montgomery said Zimmermann admitted to being a regular user of marijuana and drinking beer.

She said Zimmermann must report for prison on Jan. 28 and that she will recommend that he serve his time at the federal facility in Yankton, S.D.

Loosestrife comments:

I doubt seriously whether anyone will really push Zimmermann to consider the contradiction of his sleazy games with a shady developer and his professed leftist passion for social justice. No one will bemoan the damage that Zimmermann has done to to Minneapolis left as he arrogantly flaunted his power as a cynical elected official.

Links to notes of all 8 days of the Zimmermann trial on the sidebar.

Notes from the Zimmermann Trial--Day 8

2006-08-14T16:01:00.000-07:00

Notes from the Zimmermann trial

Here’s the usual cautionary note from the author, Liz McLemore: despite the length and detail of these notes, I’m certain that I’ve missed portions of the testimony. I’d advise anyone interested in details to consult the tapes and transcripts once they’re released. These are notes, not transcripts.

I’d also urge people to check the transcripts closely regarding the five elements Docherty numbered off as especially relevant to this case. The jury had the benefit of written text; the audience didn’t receive a copy of that. As a result, I’d caution readers to consult the transcripts of the trial for complete accuracy about those five elements.

Once again, I’ve inserted my comments within square brackets [ ] throughout the text.

Day 8: Wednesday, August 9, 2006

The evidentiary phase of the trial having concluded yesterday, Judge Montgomery explained that the United States has the burden of proof, first and last. As a result, the prosecution would be presenting its concluding statements before the defense.

Prosecuting attorney John Docherty addressed the jury, saying this corruption case could be correctly summed up by the words with which he began the trial: “Money, money, money.” He urged the jury to find the defendant guilty on all four counts, as justified by the evidence. He said “closing arguments” are part of the trial: he preferred to think of them as a “summation,” since the prosecution had met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. One instruction that Judge Montgomery would give to the jury, he said, was that they should take apart the “components,” or elements, of the case—the “broken down” parts of the crime—and examine them carefully. He said the prosecution doesn’t do any more than that. He then gave the example of a drunk driving case: the prosecution in such a case must prove that the defendant was drunk, and that the defendant was driving while drunk. He said the jury might be interested in hearing about the bar where the defendant took his last drink, but that information isn’t directly relevant as a component or element of the charges.

In this case, he said, there were five elements [note: I’m not certain I have the numbering correct here; please consult a court transcript for accuracy]:

(1) Zimmermann was an agent of the city of Minneapolis, a Council Member, and therefore had a vote and influence on things like zoning and Certificates of Completion. He was a member of the Zoning and Planning Committee; all city zoning requests go through that committee, so he had more influence than many Council Members on this issue.

(2) The city of Minneapolis had received more than $10,000 in federal money. Both the prosecution and the defense stipulated to this element or component [he referred the jury to Government Exhibit 68 as proof].

(3) Zimmermann solicited, demanded, or agreed to something of value in exchange for doing the business of the city of Minneapolis.

Zimmermann accepted $5000 in cash from developer Gary Carlson on June 14^th, 2005;
On August 15^th, 2005, Zimmermann accepted envelopes containing $1200 in cash;
On August 31^st, 2005, he accepted $1000 in cash;
On or around October 19-29^th, 2004, Zimmermann solicited a non-profit group for a retaining wall valued between $2000 and $3000. [Here he referred the jury to Exhibit 2.]

In all four cases, Docherty said, Zimmermann accepted money for himself or the benefit of another in exchange for doing the business of the city of Minneapolis.

Docherty pointed out that photocopies of the cash Zimmermann had accepted were entered as evidence: $5000 in $100 bills accepted at the Baja on June 14^th, 2005; $1200 in cash in four campaign envelopes accepted at the light rail station on August 15^th, 2005; and $1000 in cash accepted in Zimmermann’s home on August 31^st, 2005.

(4) The defendant intended to be rewarded for a transaction he performed for the city of Minneapolis, worth at least $5000. He said the value involved in count one (the $5000) had to do with the fact that Carlson was seeking to have Chicago Commons rezoned; the development itself was valued at $16.2 million. The value involved in counts two and three also had to do with the value of Chicago Commons; in this case, parking problems at the Village Market made it difficult to sell the condominiums at Chicago Commons. (The reason given for building the new Somali mall was to relieve the pressure on Chicago Commons caused by the Village Market.) Again, the value here is the value of Chicago Commons ($16.2 million). Docherty said we can also infer that the cost of building a new Somali mall would exceed $5000. Finally, the value involved in count four can be traced to the value of the Certificates of Completion, which were required before anyone could move into Franklin Station. David Rubedor, the director of PRG, had estimated the value of each unit at $180,000, so count four also involves an amount greater than $5000.

Also involved in element four is the intent of the defendant to be rewarded when he took the money and when he solicited the retaining wall. Docherty reminded the jury that on June 6^th, at the Black Forest Inn, Carlson talked about the rezoning and the Planning Commission meeting that next Monday, saying, “that’s what I need. What can I do for you?” and Zimmermann had replied, “money, money, money.” Docherty pointed out that the first mention of money came from Zimmermann.

That pattern, he said, continued at the Baja: on June 14^th, 2005, Zimmermann took an envelope containing $5000 in cash, put the money in his pocket, and then dug into his rucksack and pulled out an email from Shirley Heyer about Chicago Commons zoning. After ordering [food and drink], Carlson talked about zoning, parking, and crime—all because Carlson is a developer speaking to a Council Member about official business of the city of Minneapolis. Zimmermann said he was surprised at receiving the money, but the tape in fact never shows that. Zimmermann took the money and got right to business: it was “seamless,” claimed Docherty.

Docherty then explained that “things didn’t work out” on the zoning: Carlson’s request was denied by Council on July 22^nd. Zimmermann and Carlson met again, on August 3^rd at Chicago Commons. It was there that Carlson tied that money explicitly to the zoning issue, which was city business.

At this point, Docherty replayed the videotape. Carlson is saying something like, “We did the five grand…I know you tried. But what happened?” Zimmermann explains, “Mostly it was a reaction to that mall over there,” adding that he had talked to Schiff and Lilligren, whom he describes as “hostile.” Docherty then told the jury that what they are hearing is a direct tie between the money and Chicago Commons: Zimmermann, he explained, never says to Carlson that there was a misunderstanding that we need to clear up. There’s no attempt [on the part of Zimmermann] to dissociate himself, Docherty said.

Docherty then suggested there was a change in how Zimmermann viewed Carlson after the latter had given him the $5000. Zimmermann explained that there was a concern about putting more retail in the area. Zimmermann said he talked to Lilligren and to Schiff, but Lilligren only made a face, so his reaction was nonverbal. Schiff said only that Carlson didn’t need the zoning change: neither reaction could be described as hostile. Zimmermann, Docherty said, gives the impression [on the tape] of there being a give and take, when in fact he’s simply “leading Mr. Moneybags on.” After Zimmermann spoke to Schiff, he knew the zoning wouldn’t go through—but he never told Carlson because the money would stop flowing if it was over.

On August 15^th, Docherty said, Carlson and Zimmermann discuss sites for the new Somali mall. Zimmermann described Carlson as “babbling on,” whereas in fact there was a substantive discussion taking place about zoning, Docherty claimed. He explained that it was important to both of them [Zimmermann and Carlson] that the new development be in Zimmermann’s Ward, since he was the “go-to guy.” Docherty then showed a selection of the tape from August 15^th, pointing out that “it’s clear [here] that Carlson isn’t just ‘babbling on.’” We hear Zimmermann on tape saying the Roof Depot is only half empty, and he refers to industrial zoning. Carlson asks about whether retail development is possible, and Zimmermann replies, “yes, I think so.”

Docherty said Zimmermann [on the tape] is responding substantively at this meeting where the $1200 exchanged hands, and it was important that the site be in Zimmermann’s Ward. Zimmermann, he said, “engaged” with Carlson all through their discussion.

It was also clear on August 31^st that there was an intent to be rewarded for city business, said Docherty. [He replayed a snippet of the videotaped meeting at Zimmermann’s house.] We see Carlson explain that they need to get Zimmermann elected; we see him give Zimmermann the envelope and say that he doesn’t have all the names, but that’s “something for you, that’s for getting us the zoning over there,” and Zimmermann answers “so alright.” We then see him put his cell phone on top of the envelope containing the cash. Docherty pointed out that Zimmermann never tells Carlson to get out of his house, and he never points out that any of this is a problem.

Docherty then explained that on September 8^th, Zimmermann lied repeatedly to the FBI because he knew the truth would hurt him. If the money was taken with no intent of a reward, Docherty said, then there was no need to lie. Zimmermann, he said, had claimed he was panicked. Docherty urged the jury to look at the tapes, to listen to the agents tell Zimmermann he can leave, etc. Docherty said, “what you’ll hear isn’t panic in his voice but a deliberate, measured cadence. A videotape is just what the doctor ordered…You’ll hear the FBI ask Zimmermann if he got any cash from Carlson. Zimmermann only admits to receiving $1200 from Carlson. He lies repeatedly,” Docherty said.

Docherty went on, saying that Zimmermann had claimed he lied because of “stress-induced panic.” But when Agent Bisswurm said “we have the tape,” Zimmermann’s response is “well let’s see it then.” That’s not panic, Docherty claimed. He said that after the tape was played for Zimmermann, it is apparent that the panic is over. Zimmermann then said that he was in the process of forwarding the money to the lawyers—also a lie, said Docherty—the money had been spent. Docherty said Zimmermann referred to the money as “stash,” and a “bundle,” saying he’d been “dipping into it all summer.” Docherty asked the jury to remember the ATM records, pointing out that in July Zimmermann had withdrawn only $40 in cash. These records confirmed that he’d been spending that money, not forwarding it to the lawyers.

Docherty then pointed out that Zimmermann eventually admitted to spending the $5000. The agents then asked him if there was any other money he wanted to admit to getting from Carlson. Docherty displayed a portion of the transcript of the tape [page 31, from the September 8^th interview with the FBI] for the jury. The prosecuting attorney reminded the jury that Zimmermann had said he didn’t want to admit to receiving the money. Zimmermann had then claimed [in the courtroom] that his statement wasn’t a lie because “literally,” he didn’t want to admit to it. The real question the FBI was asking Zimmermann, Docherty said—a question which the FBI had asked previously (see page 22 of the transcript)—was did you receive any other cash from Carlson. Zimmermann said no, admitting only to the $1200. The agent then asked Zimmermann, “what if I can show you,” and Zimmermann responded, “let’s see it.” It’s clear that Zimmermann was not panicked, said Docherty: it’s a bald lie.

Docherty continued with the FBI interview, saying Zimmermann had also told the agents the $5000 was at home, in a drawer. During the trial, he said, Zimmermann explained that the money was there in a “universal sense”; in fact, the $100 bills themselves were actually gone.

“What was there also?” Docherty asked. “Miraculously, a $5000 check nearby,” he answered, “a check just produced on Monday.” Docherty then explained that Zimmermann had told the FBI that he could raise the money on credit; he had been under indictment awhile but he never got around to looking for that check until Saturday. On the subject line, Docherty said, was “just what he needed: Gary Carlson. Zimmermann ‘gilded the lily.’” Docherty claimed the check was “over the top, a forgery,” explaining that putting Carlson’s name in the subject line was odd, as though $5000 donations were so common that he needed to distinguish between them. The fact was, Docherty said, that Zimmermann took the money; where he spent it doesn’t matter. Even if the money was intended for Larry Leventhal, Zimmermann acted corruptly, taking money for the benefit of another. He also acted corruptly when he solicited the retaining wall for Mayo.

What does matter, Docherty said, is that Zimmermann sticks to his lie in the FBI tapes. When Zimmermann tells his story, he does so to “get off the hook” and it later emerges that it’s a lie: that’s relevant, claimed Docherty. Zimmermann took $7200 in exchange for city business—spent the cash—all while he was more than $35,000 in credit card debt, writing checks to shift the balance, and mortgaged “to the hilt,” explained Docherty. That’s why most of the $1000 was gone, too, he said. Zimmermann took phony donations at the light rail station—he never gave the envelopes to Dastych to check out—and they went into his desk drawer, along with the $5000 and the $1000: the latter, said Docherty, would eventually all have been spent by Zimmermann, just like the $5000.

Docherty again urged the jury to listen again to the tapes and view the videos. He told them to count the number of times Zimmermann lied to the FBI, when the agents had asked only for the truth.

(5) Zimmermann acted corruptly, knowingly, willfully, and with intent to benefit himself or another. Zimmermann was told to keep quiet about the money and never acted surprised at those requests, Docherty said, because he and Carlson were conspirators. “It made sense to him to keep it quiet,” Docherty added.

Finally, Docherty addressed the issue of entrapment: the issue, he said, was whether the defendant was predisposed or whether government agents overcame his will. At this point, the defense attorney objected: Judge Montgomery explained that it was up to the jury to look at both the defense and the prosecution’s interpretation of the facts in this case.

Docherty continued, saying that the tapes “speak volumes: the government just provided the opportunity. He pointed out that it was the defendant who brought up money at the Black Forest; he also pointed out the “rapidity” with which the money disappeared into Zimmermann’s pants pockets at the Baja. “Zimmermann had all the predisposition in the world to commit,” claimed Docherty.

He then brought up the issues surrounding the electoral process, saying it was Zimmermann who first brought up “cousins,” advising Carlson to give them $350 and have them write a check for $300: “’nobody knows or cares,’” he reported Zimmermann as saying. “Who put up a ‘straw man’ just so there was a primary?” Docherty asked. He then brought up the PRG case, saying “government entrapment doesn’t apply here,” since it was Zimmermann who brought up the free wall and persisted in it.

Docherty wrapped up his concluding statements by urging the jury to find Zimmermann guilty of all four counts, saying the charges were “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Zimmermann’s explanations “don’t bear scrutiny,” Docherty claimed: “he’s sold his office,” and he’s been charged with it. He said the “only conclusion” the jury should come to is “guilty on all four counts.”

The court then took a short recess before the defense began its concluding statements.

The defense attorney, Dan Scott, began by saying that as a lawyer, his clients trust him: but he said he “just presents the evidence.” The people who “count,” he said, are the jurors. A trial is “fundamentally” a case in which a citizen accused is judged by his fellow citizens. He then explained that if lawyers “talk lawyer” talk, the jury will stop listening; as a result, he said, he planned to address the jury’s duties and their “common-sense” decision with regard to the law. He added that it was important to them and to Zimmermann to “do it right.”

The law, he explained, “isn’t that complicated”: he explained that the law deals with whether “an agent of the government agrees to accept something of value with intent to be rewarded,” and that reward involved a thing of over $5000 in value. He said the law specifies that there must be a “direct connection between the reward and the action.”

He then referred to the elements that had just been enumerated by the prosecution: three are important, he said; two of the five were agreed upon by the attorneys, one [of these] in writing. The first element [and one of the two the lawyers had agreed upon, I think], he explained, was whether Zimmermann was an agent of the city of Minneapolis. The second element was whether Minneapolis had received federal money (so this case would be tried in a federal court). [I believe this was the element the lawyers had agreed to in writing, but I could be wrong.] The third and fourth elements, he said, were important, involving whether the defendant had accepted something of value related to transactions in the city of Minneapolis.

Most of the testimony the jury had heard during this trial, Scott said, had nothing to do with the elements of the crimes the defendant was charged with. He explained that the judge won’t define ethics for them, since that wasn’t what they were here to decide. Scott said he and the prosecutor agreed that all of the “extraneous mud” doesn’t matter—such as what Zimmermann was going to do with the money. The question before the jury, he said, was this one: “was it a bribe?” He told the jury “the prosecution wants you to lose sight of that,” saying that it doesn’t matter if Zimmermann wrote a check to FREE or whether he called Leventhal. It doesn’t matter, he said, that Carlson used “legal tender” rather than a check or a credit card (it’s “unseemly,” perhaps, but it’s still “legal tender,” he explained).

What matters, he said, is both intent and whether it was a bribe. He said the “form” matters only if he’s innocent: it’s the government’s job to make him look bad. He said the reason is because “although they control the script and the setup of the crime, they didn’t succeed.”

He said that the prosecution had “come in here with a case on the cheap, trying to sneak it under the radar to make it look like more than what it is.” He said in this case, people had asked for help from their Council Member, and he had provided help and advice, just like he would to anyone. If he was corrupt and looking for bribes, he asked, why was Carlson always the aggressor? The only time they claimed Zimmermann was the aggressor, he said, was when nobody was watching (he explained that Carlson had claimed Zimmermann had taken him by the arm and said he needed money fast). He explained that instead, what we see is Carlson: he set Zimmermann up, and the government “loaded him up.” He told the jury, “when you watch and listen [to the tapes], keep track of every time Carlson brings up money; count the times Zimmermann mentions money.” It’s Carlson who was pushing and pushing, he said—you’ll count nothing on Zimmermann’s side, he added.

Zimmermann, he explained, didn’t handle Carlson’s request any different than he did anyone else’s: when it [the zoning request] failed, it failed. Scott said some witnesses had testified that they had gotten what they wanted, and some didn’t. He said it was the government that was the serpent here, offering forbidden fruit. He told the jury to look closely at Judge Montgomery’s instructions on entrapment, and they’d note that it didn’t involve putting a gun to anyone’s head. In this case, he said, the question had to do with whether Zimmermann was “inveigled”—persuaded or induced, with no force involved. He explained, “we don’t give the government the right to be the serpent.”

Scott said the defense had offered as many witnesses as possible, until the judge had ruled there were enough. These witnesses had said Zimmermann had acted without predisposition, and there was no request for money. If Zimmermann was the aggressor, Scott explained, you’d see him eager and pushing. Instead, he said, you saw the government trying to create the crime: they did not succeed, he added.

The perceptions of lawyers, Scott explained, are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. The tapes the jury saw last week—of the 15^th and the 31^st of August—the jury’s reactions to those were probably, “say what? Where was the action in return?” He told the jury members that they had a better feel for what had really happened.

He then asked the jury to look at who was motivated: it was only after Carlson asked what he could do that Zimmermann mentioned the redistricting. He explained that the jury could see that it was “not a big deal” when they saw the tape. [note: I may have missed a sentence or two on this particular point.]

He urged the jurors to consult Exhibit 10 from May 3^rd, 2004; Carlson’s motivation is clear here when he asked and got OR2 zoning, but with limits placed on his retail in Chicago Commons (zero space for retail on Elliott, he pointed out). They [the Planning Commission] didn’t want to give Carlson what he wanted. He “wanted his cake and [wanted to] eat it, too”—that is, he wanted to make a case with the government and get his zoning. But he slipped, Scott said: Carlson forgot he had already asked for extra retail space, but he never once told Zimmermann that the problem wasn’t the zoning but the conditions the department had set that determined what he couldn’t get.

Scott said this was then an opportunity for Carlson to use the FBI—he had already been asking Lilligren for help and getting nowhere. Carlson chose a business partner he believed could get him what he wanted—Carlson had been “trained” in the suburbs. He might be “tone deaf” to people (here Scott mentioned Carlson’s worker who had said Lilligren was “on the take,” thereby alienating Lilligren), but Carlson always “wanted what he wanted.” He said Carlson had dropped Azzam Sabri when it was clear the latter was not to his advantage.

The prosecution, Scott said, suggested as proof of intent the idea that Zimmermann did research for Carlson only after the redistricting contribution. Scott asked the jury to look at Defense Exhibit 2, which includes several emails from Lilligren. Scott pointed out that Lilligren had also attempted to help Carlson. He urged the jury to look at the dates: on May 23^rd, 2005, there was an email from Lilligren to Shirley Heyer about crime, parking, and zoning. In that email, Lilligren explained that he was not advocating for Carlson but would help set up a meeting. What did this have to do with Zimmermann? Scott asked. He asked the jury to flip over the Exhibit and look at the other side: on May 24^th, Lilligren had copied Zimmermann, and they had discussed their concerns about parking, crime, and zoning, and the problems Carlson had with the neighborhood. [Note: the last email may have been from Zimmermann rather than Lilligren. My notes are ambiguous on this point.]

Scott then played about 60 seconds of the tape from May 27^th, a voicemail message from Zimmermann to Carlson that took place three days after the emails. Zimmermann says he’s looked into the parking issues and the fence, and says he’s not getting the help of Council. He explains to Carlson that he and Lilligren are both looking into the issue. Scott pointed out that Lilligren couldn’t remember this, but was reminded by the email. Scott explained that Zimmermann was working on it—that’s why he asked Carlson to remind him of where they were on it.

Scott then turned the jury’s attention to the fundraiser, saying the “money, money, money” comment was said in a humorous way—and it was said before Carlson got there. He said the prosecution had given the expression “talismanic significance,” since it was the only time Zimmermann had mentioned money. But, Scott said, the expression had nothing to do with the conversation or a bribe—“for mercy’s sake,” he said, “it was a fundraiser, not a bake sale.”

On June 14^th, Zimmermann had asked Carlson what had happened at the Planning meeting. Carlson said “things went bad.” When they met at the Baja, he asked him, “how about a Bacardi coke?” and he had ordered another for himself. Carlson had added, “before I forget,” here’s money for that “attorney thing,” Scott said. The zoning? He had said, “I guess so.” And then when talking about the Village Market, Zimmermann brought out the email.

Carlson “blew his lines,” Scott said. Zimmermann should have said “don’t talk to me about the Village Market, talk about money.” He didn’t: he said “call Shirley.” On the 15^th, he talked about his conversation with Schiff, who had said the zoning is “better than the one you want.” On the 16^th, he told Carlson “what you want is not a problem with OR2.” The problem, Scott said, had to do with the restriction in OR2, not the zoning.

Scott explained that Carlson tried to set up a meeting with Lilligren in one of the “snottier letters I’ve seen for someone asking favors.” It was Zimmermann’s problem, too: how to get Carlson to act in a nice way. The problem for Carlson, Scott said, is not crime but people who are “not of Nordic hue” in the area where he’s trying to sell his condos.

Scott said Carlson offered all this money to Heyer and Lilligren and still didn’t get what he wanted; instead, he scared them away.

Carlson, Scott said, gave $5000 to the redistricting suit, but he himself never even gave $300. Carlson had to keep shifting the conversation to some other area, Scott said; he then told the jury, “the government’s got you believing he [Zimmermann] wanted more, but Zimmermann’s not pushing for more.”

Scott then said something about the zoning issue being over on July 26^th [?], but Carlson kept leading Zimmermann on; the FBI says they have a new theory, Scott said, so they’re leading Zimmermann on.

Scott said it [the money Carlson gave to Zimmermann] was not the $28,000 that Carlson raised for Coleman but $5000. Scott told the jury, “if you believe Carlson’s testimony, that Zimmermann wanted to go to a Coleman fundraiser, then it’s too late for all of us.”

Carlson, he said, talked to Zimmermann about his Hummer, deep sea fishing, and his condo in Florida. Zimmermann said he’d never been to Florida. Carlson told him to come on down [and fish], you won’t have to cut a hole in the ice. Carlson was showing off, Scott said; a $5000 donation from Carlson was nothing for him, from Zimmermann’s point of view. Linda North [one of the witnesses for the defense] doesn’t even have $5000: she gave $40 to the campaign.

Carlson “butters up” Zimmermann, Scott said, telling him “we need to have you elected.” He spent more time on that than anything, Scott explained. Scott said it’s not important to the case whether Zimmermann wrote a check [to the redistricting campaign]; that’s why it’s genuine, Scott said. It’s irrelevant to the prosecution’s case—it surprised them—Taylor said he saw the check—so what? It doesn’t matter, Scott said, it’s just a fact of the case. Except for the accusation, it’s not important.

There’s a misperception by the government on what they have, Scott explained: [they think that] everything they investigate must be a crime.

Scott told the jury, “it’s easy to decide by people who wrote the script”—Carlson could have said $30,000, a piece of the business, etc….It’s a serious case—public corruption—and when the U.S. attorney’s office is able to report it in press releases, “they count ‘em up.” They should have made it a real case, Scott said—they should have shown what an enthusiastic participant Zimmermann was. But they did it on the cheap—they took advantage of people’s ideas about cash, that it looked bad, that Zimmermann was a politician—the whole thing was made to look bad, and they know the weakness of the average citizen. They couldn’t punish anyone big, so they got someone small.

As far as the PRG charge, Scott said, it’s a joke. The alleyway is a joke. They [PRG] ripped down the house and messed up the land. One of the issues in the swap was a retaining wall—“negotiate if needed,” they said. PRG took responsibility, then made a decision it was not needed—they knew they were dealing with Dean [as Mayo’s advisor]. Rubedor’s predecessor said “consult your advisor”—a week before the agreement was done. They got criticism mixed with praise from Zimmermann. Zimmermann didn’t want a reward, he said let me build you a wall. Then he said, “any thoughts?” The issue was open for discussion—Zimmermann said [to PRG] “you really didn’t finish the project…”

But the government says that’s public corruption, Scott continued. That’s why we have jurors. Zimmermann tried to help out—at least they could have put in railroad ties, which they did not put in. It was a minor irritant for the neighborhood. The government says the official actions were the Certificates of Completion—but they could be signed by anyone on whatever day. They had nothing to do with official actions.

The same was true of the redistricting: the government tried to make it sound like the issue was immediately important, but it wasn’t—they had to close the account. But the government needed to build it up so they had a case—no one thought it was important then. Shoemaker was in Alaska—“there’s a man we’d like to trade lives with,” Scott said. This was a vehicle for them [the government], not for anyone else.

Now to counts two and three, Scott said. There’s a “lawyer trick”: ask three to five questions at once, finish with a last one…[Scott said the prosecution used this trick, adding that] somewhere in there Docherty stuck in the $5000—but that wasn’t the question asked. [I’m not completely sure what specific instance Scott was referring to here, but it sounded as though Scott is claiming Docherty fired several questions off at Zimmermann; when Zimmermann answered only the last one he was made to look bad, because an earlier question in the series was phrased in a damaging fashion—and the defendant appeared to have assented to something damaging in an earlier question, when in fact he was only answering the last one in the series. But my notes aren’t clear here…] Scott explained that “we have that here because they [the U.S. attorney’s office] don’t have a case.

Zimmermann is a citizen, no different from members of the jury, Scott explained. The government wants a chance to impose all penalties if they take a citizen and accuse him of a crime. [He then said something about history and only the nobles getting a fair trial about a thousand years ago.] Here, the defendant is presumed to be innocent: that carries through to the end, and he has no burden to prove that he’s innocent. The only way to overcome the presumption of innocence is to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Scott told the jury, “you must be darned sure you wouldn’t hesitate in your decision, treating it as if it were the most important of your affairs.” If you look up [while driving] to see if the light has changed, you hesitate. In this case, Scott said, we’re missing what color the light is. [He then referred again to critical decisions in a person’s life—buying a home, having kids, etc.—saying to the jury that they must be confident, adding something like “it’s what you’d expect if it were your shoes or your neighbor’s.”]

The problem, Scott said, is the government knows it has the burden of proof. But they didn’t put a case together that would meet it—there are not events here where no one would hesitate.

Scott concluded by saying “Zimmermann didn’t solicit or accept a bribe—he was not predisposed. The government tried to present the apple, but they didn’t succeed. They’re trying to show a crime when one doesn’t exist….The only verdict possible is innocent on all four counts.”

The court recessed for a short break until about 11:40.

The prosecution again took the floor. Docherty pointed out that in the 56 minutes of argument that the defense had just put forth, there was not one word about Zimmermann’s testimony to the FBI on September 8^th. Docherty claimed the tapes from September 8^th “blow the claim of entrapment out of the water.” He explained that in cases of entrapment, the government had to have “created” the crime, so the defendant was induced or persuaded. If the prosecution could prove that the defendant was predisposed or intended to commit the acts, however, the defendant was not entrapped.

Docherty referred to Zimmermann’s lies to the FBI on September 8^th, saying that Zimmermann changed his story only after he was shown evidence. Although Zimmermann attempted to explain these lies as confusion or panic, he was in fact precise with his language, and “loose” with the money in the drawer: Docherty said that in the one hour and forty minutes of audiotape, Zimmermann displayed his consciousness of his own guilt. On tape, Zimmermann said he didn’t take the money, then said he took it, then said it was going to the lawyer, then claimed it was at home in his drawer, then finally admitted that he took the money and spent it. Docherty said Zimmermann knew that was evidence of his guilt: he had something to hide, Docherty claimed, and he was predisposed.

Docherty then cited the issue of “cousins” and Zimmermann’s explanations of how to avoid campaign finance limits as additional evidence of predisposition. He said at the Black Forest, it was Zimmermann who brought up the money. Docherty said something about the defense claiming it was the “theme of the evening.” Docherty said, OK, then mentioned the Baja and the “speed” with which the $5000 disappeared into Zimmermann’s pockets. He said on August 15^th. there was a substantive discussion about zoning, but Zimmermann claimed Carlson had simply “babbled.” In addition, Docherty said, Zimmermann had attempted to hide what was going on at his home on August 31^st by putting a cell phone on top of the money. All this, Docherty said, shows what was really going on at the Black Forest. We know that when Zimmermann said, “money, money, money,” he meant it, claimed Docherty.

Docherty then said the tie between the money and city business was made explicit on August 3^rd.

He repeated his claim that it wasn’t a case of entrapment, but a situation in which someone was predisposed. The government gave Zimmermann the opportunity to do something he was already predisposed to do.

Docherty said the defense attorney, Scott, had asked where was the something in return for the money? Docherty countered this claim by saying (1) Zimmermann violated the law when he accepted something of value in exchange for city business. He didn’t have to accomplish that business, just work on it (Docherty mentioned Collins’s research on the zoning issue for Carlson). (2) Scott had mentioned Carlson’s “tone deaf, snotty letter.” Docherty asked what this had to do with the issues in this case. He told the jury, “if you vote for guilt, that’s saying on such and such a day, the criminal laws were violated. It doesn’t matter what Carlson was doing” [I think he added here, “that he wasn’t home for dinner,” but I’m not sure]. What matters, he said, are the three occasions and the money.

On August 3^rd, Docherty continued, Carlson made explicit the tie between the zoning and the money. Zimmermann “cruises right through it,” Docherty claimed, and never once told Carlson there was a miscommunication. In fact, he said, Zimmermann “tells him what he got for his $5000.”

Scott, Docherty said, had argued that the Baja meeting was not about zoning. In fact, he said, Carlson says (on tape) that he “can’t believe last night.” On June 13^th [the previous evening], the Planning Committee had denied Carlson’s request for rezoning. The next day, when Carlson and Zimmermann met, it was clear that Carlson “wasn’t referring to the Twins”: he was referring to the Planning meeting decision.

Zimmermann was not entrapped, Docherty argued. He was “presented with the apple, but Zimmermann took it and bit.” He took the $5000 and spent it on himself; he took the $1000, he took the $1200 and never handed it back. When Carlson deliberately asked what he got for his $5000, Zimmermann told him. He lied to the FBI, and he did so because he knew he was guilty.

Docherty then told the jury, “if you believe the defendant committed these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, then your verdict is fair, just, and right.” He urged them to find Zimmermann guilt on count 1, guilty on count 2, guilty on count 3, and guilty on count 4.

Judge Montgomery then turned to the jury and told them that they’d have lunch provided at the court’s expense in the cafeteria downstairs. She said the court would reconvene at 1:00 and the jury members would be given their final instructions at that point. The court would recess until then; once the jury reconvened, the doors to the courtroom would be locked while the jury received instructions.

[Note: I’m certain that I missed some of the instructions here. In some cases, the judge was reading from pre-prepared text; in others, she seemed to be providing her own instructions.]

Once the jury re-entered the courtroom at 1:00, Montgomery explained that it was her duty to give the jury instructions in the applicable laws. These instructions should guide them during their deliberations. She said the instructions were provided in writing for them now, but they were no more and no less important than the earlier instructions they had received orally.

The court security officers locked the doors.

She urged the jury to follow the law and to apply the rules of law to the facts presented during the trial. She said if there were any differences between the counsel’s interpretation and the prosecution’s, they should use the law. Don’t concern yourselves, she told them, with the wisdom of the law: base your decisions on the law itself (she said it was a violation to base their decision on anything other than the evidence).

She explained that Zimmermann had entered a plea of not guilty on all counts.

She told the jury not to be persuaded by parties involved in the case or by public opinion. Instead, they should apply the rules of law that were being given to them.

She told them to consider the evidence presented in the same way as other testimony: consider and evaluate the evidence in light of common knowledge and the tendencies of human beings. She said if they believed the defendant was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, they should say so. By the same token, if they believed the defendant was guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they should say so.

She said the law required that the government bear the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. She urged the jury to consider all exhibits, witnesses, and facts, regardless of whether they were presented or called by the prosecution or by the defense. She said the jury members were the sole judges of facts; anything that was stricken from the record should be disregarded; she also told them to disregard anything they had heard outside the courtroom. She said they were not limited to the “bald” statements of the witnesses: they could draw from the facts their own reasonable inferences (she said they should let reason and commonsense lead them in drawing their conclusions).

She told them to use both direct evidence (in which the person had actual knowledge) and circumstantial evidence in drawing their conclusions. She said the law made no distinctions, nor is a greater amount of certainty required. [I’d urge readers to consult the transcripts regarding this paragraph; I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not sure I’ve reported this part of the judge’s instructions accurately.]

She told them if the references to the Exhibits were different than their memory, they should trust their recall. She said the questions asked by the lawyers were not evidence; only the answers could be considered evidence.

She then said any charts or summaries used during the trial were designed for convenience; they were not facts, and the jury should disregard them if their memory of the facts was different.

She told them to disregard anything that was not directly relevant to the charges of the indictment. She explained some facts that emerged from the grand jury indictment:

Zimmermann was an elected member of the Minneapolis City Council, representing the 6^th Ward. He was also a member of the Zoning and Planning Committee; because the City Council approved any of their decisions, his actions on that committee were done as an agent of the City;
Minneapolis is a local government; in 2005, the city had accepted at least $10,000 in federal aid;
PRG is a nonprofit developer of low-income housing;
Chicago Commons is a condo and retail development in the 8^th Ward; the development is located across from the 6^th Ward.

She then laid out the four counts Zimmermann was charged with [I didn’t get this stuff down verbatim; for the value attached to each count, please consult the prosecuting attorney’s comments earlier today]:

(1) On June 14^th, 2005, Zimmermann knowingly and corruptly solicited and demanded something of value ($5000) as a reward for doing city business. In this case, it was a zoning application. She said this was a violation of title 18, section 666 (I think that same title was cited as applicable to the other counts as well).

(2) On August 15^th, 2005, Zimmermann knowingly and corruptly solicited…$1200 with the idea of being rewarded for something of value.

(3) On August 31^st, 2005, Zimmermann…solicited…$1000 with intent to be influenced or rewarded…

(4) On or about October 19, 2004, in an email response to PRG’s request he sign Certificates of Completion, Zimmermann asked for a retaining wall on the property of his partner. When PRG refused, he asked for the materials. So this charge contained the same language about “knowingly and corruptly,” but this time the charge relates to the retaining wall and not cash. The value, I think, was attached to the townhomes.

[I think she added something in here about considering the dates to be “reasonably near” but not necessarily precise.]

The judge reiterated that Zimmermann had pled not guilty to all four counts. She explained that a defendant begins a trial with the presumption of innocence. The prosecution must prove each essential element relating to the charges.

She then read off the text of Title 18 section 666. I couldn’t catch all of it, but here’s a link if anyone is interested in the full text: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=666

She said there were 5 elements of the charges:

(1) Was Zimmermann an agent of the city of Minneapolis?

(2) Did Minneapolis receive at least $10,000 in federal money in 2005?

(3) Did Zimmermann knowingly and corruptly solicit or demand something of value in exchange for doing the city’s business in each of the following charges:

(a) The $5000

(b) The $1200

(d) The retaining wall

(4) Did he intend to be rewarded for a transaction or series of transactions conducted as part of city business?

(5) In doing so, did he act corruptly? The judge said something here about “voluntarily and deliberately,” and she said something about a motive (hope or expectation of financial gain to himself or another). She defined “knowingly” as realizing what he was doing; not being ignorant. She said willfully meant knowingly performing an act, and she said a thing of value could be tangible or intangible. (I think she added something here about “exercising control over how money is spent,” too, but I didn’t capture it.)

She told the jury not to convict if they didn’t find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

She then urged the jury to consider each charge separately, adding that “intent” or “knowledge” need not be scrutinized directly. She said they may consider the circumstances in determining intent.

She then addressed the issue of entrapment, saying that if the jury believed Zimmermann had been entrapped, they must find him not guilty of the charges. She defined entrapment as not showing intent or disposition but persuaded by officers or agents.

She said defendants are presumed innocent: indictments are not evidence of wrongdoing. The evidence had been presented during the trial. She said presumption of innocence alone is enough to acquit; the defendant is not required to produce evidence of his innocence.

She then explained what “reasonable doubt” meant, saying it was not a shadow of a doubt. She said unless the government had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, they must find the defendant not guilty of the charges.

She then told them that they could consider the opinions of expert witnesses, but not the opinions of other kinds of witnesses. Unless the witness’s opinion was based on education or experience, they may disregard it as opinion.

She reminded them that they were the sole judges of the facts and should judge the credibility of each witness: they may believe all, part, or none of each witness’s testimony. She instructed them to scrutinize the testimony and consider the circumstances (whether each witness was worthy enough to believe). She told them to consider whether the witness had an accurate memory or recollection of events and the extent to which their testimony was contradicted by that of others.

The judge repeated what she had said on the first day of the trial: two or more people witnessing an event may see things differently. The jury members had to decide whether any discrepancies were important or insignificant; whether the discrepancy was intentional or even a falsehood. She urged them to attach “weight” to the testimony of each witness based on that.

She said a witness could be discredited or impeached as inconsistent or contradictory, but it was the sole province of the jury to determine credibility of testimony. If proven false, they could reject all that witness’s testimony or only part.

She said that when a witness made a statement before the trial that was later shown to be false, the jury must use that in determining whether the person was in fact guilty of the charges.

She said they must exercise their collective judgment and their decision must be unanimous. Each jury member had to decide for him/herself, and they shouldn’t hesitate to re-examine the facts, but don’t surrender to the opinion of others just because they desire to arrive at an opinion.

She added that nothing she had said was intended to shape the verdict of the jury. She said the verdict was their exclusive responsibility.

The punishment, however, was the province of the court and should never be considered by the jury. She explained that once they arrived at a verdict, the foreman would read a statement, “we the jury find the defendant” guilty or not guilty. Each count would be read separately.

She said when they reached a unanimous decision, they would each be asked to sign the document(s). Any communication with the court while the jury deliberated had to be done in writing and given to court security. Likewise, they must not communicate with others. They were not to reveal how the jury stood until they reached a unanimous verdict.

She then told them to bear their responsibilities courageously and without fear, and to remember that they were neither partisans nor advocates but “tryers” of the facts.

Judge Montgomery then swore in the court security officers and released the alternates. She told the jury she would provide a DVD player for them and hoped one of them knew how to use it if they wanted to do so.

The jury left to begin its deliberations at around 1:45pm.

Notes from the Zimmermann Trial--Day 7

2006-08-12T20:54:00.000-07:00

Notes from the Zimmermann trial

Once again, I’ve inserted my comments within square brackets [ ] throughout the text.

Day 7: Tuesday, August 8, 2006

The day began as Zimmermann again took the stand in his own defense.

The defense attorney, Dan Scott, returned to the line of questioning he had ended with on Monday. Scott mentioned that Carlson had requested that his zoning agenda item be moved up, from July 14^th to June 23^rd, but the meeting took place as planned on July 14^th. The item was placed on the consent agenda; since Zimmermann had arrived late, he was not present for the vote. Scott asked Zimmermann why he was late that day and why he didn’t make a motion to return to the item or discuss it; Zimmermann said he couldn’t remember why he was late, and he said he had no “coherent reason” to request that the Zoning and Planning committee return to the item for discussion.

Scott asked Zimmermann what happened a few days later, and Zimmermann said he told Carlson he didn’t have a plan [for what to do now that Carlson’s zoning request had been denied]; Zimmermann said he wasn’t completely blunt with Carlson on this point because he always tried “to let people down easy.”

On July 23^rd, the full Council met and Zimmermann voted not to give Carlson his zoning (once again, the item was on the consent agenda). Scott asked him if he had spoken to Lilligren about the item, and Zimmermann said he had done so right before the meeting; Lilligren’s response, Zimmermann said, was to shrug (Zimmermann pointed out that Lilligren had denied on the witness stand that Zimmermann had spoken to him about the issue). Zimmermann said the vote effectively ended the issue; he said he could have gone to the mayor at that point, but he added that he wasn’t about to do that.

Scott then turned his questions to the meeting with Carlson at the Baja on June 14^th. Scott asked him if he expected Carlson to come through with his donation to the redistricting suit; Zimmermann said “not really,” adding that only about 10% of people come through with their promises of donations to the campaign. In response to Scott’s questions, Zimmermann said he wasn’t expecting cash—“absolutely not”—but thought Carlson would give him a check. At some point Zimmermann said he counted the money, and it was $5000.

Zimmermann said that he told Tom Taylor about the money at a wedding a few days later; he also said he had tried to call Shoemaker. Scott said to Zimmermann, “so you were going to call others [about the donation],” but the prosecuting attorney objected to this question. The judge sustained the objection; Zimmermann then said he had called Leventhal and they discussed the money. Zimmermann told Leventhal he had spoken with Tom Taylor and Travis Lee, and they thought it was a good idea to hang onto the money in case there were court costs from the city. Zimmermann said Leventhal wasn’t happy that the “whole thing” [the entire $5000] wasn’t going to him to pay legal costs. The defense then asked Zimmermann if he intended to do anything with that money, and he said no; he said he stuck it in a file folder in his disheveled office. Scott asked him if he was planning to keep the cash until the lawsuit was over, and Zimmermann said no, adding that he was trying to keep it until there was a mechanism in place to pass it on (because FREE’s bank account was no longer in existence, he said, and Tom Taylor had told him to wait until Bruce Shoemaker returned).

Scott asked Zimmermann if he started using the cash, and Zimmermann acknowledged that he’d used it for “everyday” expenses. He said he had previously gone to the ATM for cash, but now he didn’t need to do so. Scott asked if he had made a determination to place $5000 back in the FREE account: Zimmermann said he planned to transfer his balance and then draw from a low-interest credit card account so he wouldn’t have to pay interest on the money for a year. Zimmermann explained that he almost always carries a balance over from month to month; he said when an offer came in around June 14^th or 18^th for no interest for a year, he used one of the credit card checks to write a check to FREE.

The defense then presented Exhibit 39, a promotional offer of 0% interest from the Bank of America; there were three checks on the Exhibit, and the third had been filled out. VOID was written on it in two places in Zimmermann’s handwriting; the date read “July 19^th,” and the subject line mentioned Carlson’s name and the redistricting suit. When questioned, Zimmermann said he had written the check on July 19^th.

The prosecuting attorney then spoke to Zimmermann, explaining that in criminal trials, the prosecution and defense share evidence. This particular piece of evidence, Exhibit 39, was presented to the prosecution at approximately 8:00am yesterday—after the government had rested its case. Zimmermann said he had just found the check at his house the previous weekend.

At this point, the judge dismissed the jury for a short time. Once the jury left the room, Docherty objected to the admissibility of Exhibit 39, saying it violated government Rule 16. He explained that Scott had given it to the U.S. attorney’s office at 8am on Monday, adding that the obligation to present evidence earlier in the trial was on the defense’s side. He said the defense was violating the reciprocal discovery agreement filed last year, and presenting the Exhibit at this late date was a violation of Rule 16 [I believe section d2c was mentioned at this time.] Docherty explained that it was too late to follow up and subpoena additional records.

Judge Montgomery asked Docherty what forensic analysis he would have conducted, if he had received the documents in time. Docherty didn’t really answer; both the prosecution and the judge agreed that the authenticity of the handwriting wasn’t likely an issue.

Scott then replied to Docherty’s objection by explaining that Rule 16 simply says that when you get evidence, you turn it over; he said evidence could keep coming in, so discovery is the norm in criminal cases. He said the relevant issues were (1) when the party obtains the evidence; and (2) when they intend to use it. Scott said Zimmermann didn’t find the check until last Saturday—the defense thought it had been destroyed—and he had delivered it to Scott on Sunday. He said it was clear they’d seek its admissibility: even though it did not relate directly to what Zimmermann was charged with, he said it was important in terms of the “passion and prejudice” of the jury.

He went on to claim that the check itself should not make a difference in the case; the government had emphasized it [the issue of whether or not Zimmermann had attempted to give FREE the money] because they believed it might appeal to the jury, so Zimmermann kept searching for the check over the weekend. [The indictment was based on whether money was being given in exchange for city business.] Scott explained that the same situation applied to Exhibit 40, a set of Bank of America checks that included a copy of a check to Shoemaker for $6000 dated November 2005. He said it was not Rule 16 evidence until the government made a case, adding that it really wasn’t an issue until Bisswurm had testified on Friday.

Judge Montgomery overruled the prosecution’s objections and allowed for admissibility, arguing for the credibility of late discovery. She said the “remedy” outlined in Rule 16 wasn’t just exclusion of evidence, but part B of the remedy was to allow a full range of cross-examination [of Zimmermann], which she said she would permit.

At around 10:05 the jury returned and Scott continued his questioning of Zimmermann. The judge received Exhibit 39 as admissible evidence.

Scott projected the top part of Exhibit 39 on the screens for the jury. Zimmermann explained that he often received such credit card offers, and would sometimes write a check using them when the interest rate was sufficiently low (below 12 or 14%, as opposed to 20% interest). Zimmermann said he “saves this stuff,” adding that he saves all his records, but that they’re not exactly organized—just “generally” so. He said he keeps these records upstairs in his home office, in the bedroom, which has an “open design.”

Check numbers #6024 and #6025 were shown; the defense then showed #6026, the last check in the group: it was dated July 19^th, 2005, and was addressed to FREE (the subject line at the bottom referred to a donation from Gary Carlson). VOID is written in two places, in blue ink.

Zimmermann said the check was never cashed; the offer was good only until August 31^st, so the expiration date expired before the check was cashed. Check #6026 was a bit tattered, and it appeared to have been detached from the other two; when asked why it was not in “pristine condition,” Zimmermann said it was in the file. He then changed his mind and said no, it was in his billfold, adding that he had carried it around awhile to give to Tom Taylor when he saw him. Taylor apparently came over to Zimmermann’s house that summer to work on the campaign; at that time, Zimmermann said he tried to give the check to Taylor, but Taylor wouldn’t accept it. Zimmermann said after a certain point it became clear to him that the check wasn’t going to be cashed. In response to questioning, he said he wrote “Gary Carlson” on the subject line so he’d know what the check was intended for.

The defense attorney then pointed out that the check was a credit card check, indicating Zimmermann was moving credit around. He asked Zimmermann if he had written a check to Shoemaker for the money he had received from Carlson, and he said yes, but it was written after the FBI had searched the house and Shoemaker had returned to town. Scott asked Zimmermann if he had done the same thing [as he did with the previous check addressed to FREE], and he said yes.

The defense then presented Exhibit 40, a series of three Bank of America checks. Once again, this group was part of a promotional offer that expired in December 2005. Check #7208, at the top, was the one Zimmermann said he wrote to Shoemaker, dated November 16, 2005 (after the FBI search and the election). This check was addressed directly to Shoemaker for $6000 [Zimmermann explained that after 9/11, it was much harder to establish a new bank account for FREE]. Zimmermann explained that the $6,000 was to cover Carlson’s donations of $5000 and $1000. The subject line read “redistricting lawsuit fund.” Like the previous exhibit, Zimmermann said he had found this check over the weekend. [I’m not certain of this, but I vaguely remember this check as being a copy; if I remember correctly (and I may not), Shoemaker actually cashed the “real” check. Once again, I’d urge readers to consult a transcript for accuracy on this point.]

Scott then turned his questioning to the issue of the proposed new Somali mall, explaining that Carlson had taken Zimmermann’s suggestion and then said he’d help get the mall. It was Zimmermann, he said, who had first suggested the idea when he and Carlson met at the Baja. Carlson’s part, Zimmermann said, was to do the development with the idea that the Somalis would eventually own the mall themselves rather than him or Sabri. Carlson was trying to “sell” Zimmermann on the idea, saying the latter would look like a hero. Scott suggested the idea actually made sense, since alleviating traffic would make Zimmermann’s constituents happy.

Zimmermann said he shared ideas for a location with Carlson (Cedar Box, Sherman Associates, etc). Zimmermann didn’t take Carlson to see the Roof Depot location, but told him it was a big warehouse [I think they said it was an old Sears warehouse on 28^th]. He said it was a better location than the Village Market because it wasn’t in a residential area (there were already two Somali markets in the 6^th Ward: Karmel at Lake and Pillsbury/Pleasant, and the Village Market). In response to questions from Scott, Zimmermann explained that he never thought the Village Market would close; he thought Carlson was making a legitimate proposal. Zimmermann said he knew Mohammed Mohammed, and since Carlson kept invoking his name, Zimmermann thought the idea was legitimate. Carlson’s motive as conveyed to Zimmermann was to reduced crime around the Village Market; Carlson said he thought he could actually close the Village Market by diverting business to the new market, but Zimmermann said that didn’t seem likely to him.

Scott then turned his attention to the $1200 Carlson gave Zimmermann in campaign envelopes bearing fake Somali names. Zimmermann explained that the envelopes were given to him almost as an afterthought, at the end of their meeting [I believe this occurred at the light rail station on August 15^th]. Zimmermann said he assumed they were campaign donations, but he had no interest in looking at the names at the time; he said he didn’t really think about whether they were in Carlson’s name. Scott asked him when he had a chance to look at them; Zimmermann said he wasn’t sure, but he did eventually get around to it. He said he saw the cash, and some of the handwriting on the envelopes seemed to be the same, but one looked different. He said none of the envelopes bore Carlson’s name. Zimmermann said he “hung on to them,” adding that he didn’t want to give them to his treasurer until he was sure it wouldn’t require extra work for him [the treasurer, Dastych].

At the August 31^st meeting at Zimmermann’s house to discuss the new mall, Carlson handed Zimmermann a campaign envelope. Zimmermann said he didn’t know what was in it, but he put the envelope (containing the money) on the table; he said he didn’t remember what Carlson had said the money was for. Zimmermann then said the FBI had played a tape of that meeting for him on September 8^th, so he had had his memory refreshed about what Carlson had said. The tape, Zimmermann said, showed Carlson telling Zimmermann the money was from the Somalis he had spoken to (Zimmermann said he hadn’t remembered this detail when the FBI first confronted him). Zimmermann explained that in November, he had given the $1000 from Carlson to the redistricting suit, saying there was no name on the envelope when he had received it.

Scott then went back to the $1200 given to Zimmermann on August 15^th: in response to questioning, Zimmermann asserted that the money was not given to him in exchange for anything he did or was going to do; he said the same was true of the $1000.

On September 8^th, Zimmermann believed he would be attending a meeting between himself, Carlson, and the disgruntled merchants who wanted to explore the idea of a new Somali market. Scott asked Zimmermann if they had narrowed down the options to the Depot site, and Zimmermann said he wasn’t sure. Zimmermann said he was anxious to hear their stories first-hand; instead, Carlson was hustled off and no merchants arrived. Zimmermann said he didn’t expect the subsequent interview with the FBI.

In response to Scott’s questions, Zimmermann admitted he had at first lied to the FBI about receiving the $5000, saying he panicked and was caught by surprise. Scott asked if he was nervous at the time, and Zimmermann said yes. He said he wasn’t sure if the FBI had said at first that the $5000 was illegal. Zimmermann eventually told them about the $5000, agreeing that it “didn’t look good” that he had spent all of that cash. He said he didn’t think the money for the redistricting lawsuit was illegal at the time, and he didn’t think he got money in exchange for doing anything for Carlson. The FBI agents told him that Carlson had said he was giving the money in exchange for Zimmermann’s efforts; Zimmermann said he had insisted that neither the $5000 nor the $1000 had been given in exchange for anything he would do.

The court recessed for about 15 minutes.

When the jury returned, the prosecution began its cross-examination of Zimmermann.

Prosecution’s cross-examination of the witness, Gary Dean Zimmermann (defendant)

Docherty turned to the events of late 2005, saying Zimmermann had a number of different credit cards and owed about $38,000 [note: this may have been $35,000]—on a salary of $65,000 per year. Zimmermann asserted this was true, saying the City Council members’ salary was “more now.” Earlier in the year, in February, Zimmermann and his wife had bought property: they mortgaged their property on 17^th “up to here” and used that to buy property in the new 6^th Ward, which they then refinanced to buy another house. Docherty said they didn’t have much equity in any of them; in fact, in December of 2004, Zimmermann had had to borrow $10,000 from a friend (Zimmermann asserted this was true). Upon closing, Zimmermann borrowed another $8000; he said he didn’t remember the exact dates but thought he had given back the $10,000 by then.

Docherty asked if Zimmermann had received $1000 in cash on August 31^st, and he said yes. He said the FBI tape showed that Zimmermann had put the money on the table and covered it up with a PDA [Zimmermann corrected him—or perhaps Docherty corrected himself--saying it was a cell phone]. Carlson told him, “you can fill in the name later,” and Zimmermann had said “ok.” Carlson had replied, “that’s for getting us that zoning.”

Docherty then showed a portion of the August 31^st tape, with Carlson saying “one thing I’m going to need….[and later] that’s for getting us that zoning over there.” Zimmermann replied, “so…alright.”

Docherty then turned to the events of August 15^th at the Franklin Avenue light rail station, where Zimmermann had accepted the four envelopes. Zimmermann said he had suspicions about the names on the envelopes, so he had hung onto them [rather than giving them to his campaign treasurer]. Docherty said something like the following: so on September 8^th, they had been sitting in the drawer about three weeks, but you [Zimmermann] had done nothing to check on the legitimacy of the envelopes. Zimmermann agreed when Docherty said people don’t always fill in all the data, so Dastych [the treasurer] occasionally had to follow up. But Zimmermann had never asked him to check into these particular donations.

Docherty then said, “Despite these reservations, you took another $1000 in another envelope—this time with no name, and you were told to fill in the name.” [Zimmermann did not contradict him.] Docherty then said something about the $1000 not being divisible by 300, the maximum amount allowed by law that an individual could contribute to a campaign. He said, “you know that’s the maximum,” and Zimmermann said yes. Docherty then said, “so if you were not surprised that the Franklin Avenue money was divisible, didn’t the $1000 seem even phonier looking?” Zimmermann said no.

The prosecuting attorney then asked him if the money was for the redistricting, and Zimmermann said “correct.” Docherty asked him if he had spent the whole $6000; Zimmermann said no, and Docherty explained that indeed the FBI agents had found $300 left in the envelope. He then asked Zimmermann if he was in the process of spending that $1000, and he said yes, he was spending the stash of cash. Docherty asked, “so when the $300 from that $1000 was gone, you were going to check on its legitimacy?” [I‘m afraid I didn’t record Zimmermann’s answer here.]

Docherty suggested that Zimmermann was in the middle of a campaign and therefore could have used the $1200. Zimmermann said yes, adding that although there was no cash flow problem [in the campaign] at that point, he could of course have used a legitimate campaign donation. The prosecutor then asked, “so for three weeks, there was no effort to check on the legitimacy [of that money]?” Zimmermann replied no, saying he didn’t bother Dastych about it.

Docherty continued to press Zimmermann about the $1200 on August 15^th, saying that the purpose of that meeting was to look at sites for the alternate mall. He said the tape showed Carlson frequently bringing up business, talking about the zoning. Zimmermann said, “he babbled on and on, and I let him.” Docherty asked Zimmermann, “when Carlson asked whose Ward the Cedar Box company was in, you understood it was important to him [that the site be in Zimmermann’s ward]?” Zimmermann said yes, adding that it was easier to get a project through. The prosecutor then said something about that being because of “aldermanic courtesy,” and Zimmermann replied that although the Cedar Box company was in his Ward at the time, it was moved out under redistricting [so it wouldn’t stay in Ward 6].

The prosecutor then referred to the September 8^th meeting with the FBI, where Zimmermann was interviewed for about two and a half hours. He reminded Zimmermann that the agents had asked if he needed anything to drink, or needed to use the bathroom, adding that he was free to leave at any time.

Docherty asked him about why he had lied at first to the FBI. Zimmermann said he was “panicked”; this panic was “transitory,” and he added that he later recovered his composure. He said he knew people to say untrue things when they were in a “state of panic.” Docherty asked him if people said such things deliberately. Zimmermann said, “well, when someone is panicked or perhaps if they were drunk,” they might say things that were not true. Docherty asked him what he meant by “drunk.” Zimmermann said he just meant that what people say when they’re not in their normal state of mind, for example, when they are drunk, might not be true. The prosecuting attorney then asked him, “you weren’t drunk?” and Zimmermann replied, “no, panicked.”

The prosecutor then asked Zimmermann what he thought a lie was, and Zimmermann said, “A lie would be something like your opening statement to the jury.” [I think the defense said something at this point, but I didn’t catch it.] A very angry prosecutor objected to Zimmermann’s statement, saying it was “argumentative and uncalled for.” The judge sustained his objection and asked Zimmermann to limit himself to answering the questions.

Docherty then displayed a portion of the transcript (page 9) of Zimmermann’s interview with the FBI. Zimmermann is cited as saying he told Carlson to send the money [the $5000] to Larry Leventhal, adding “that’s where it is.” The prosecutor said those were lies, weren’t they? Zimmermann replied by saying he had an incorrect memory, saying he had told other people to send money directly to Leventhal; he had just confused Carlson with someone else. Docherty stated, “so you weren’t panicked but confused.” Zimmermann said yes.

The prosecutor then asked Zimmermann if $5000 contributions to FREE were unusual. Zimmermann said they had received contributions in that amount a few times, but not often. Docherty then referred to the fact that Zimmermann had told the FBI that the money was at Leventhal’s, and Zimmermann said he wasn’t sure why he had said that. Zimmermann said the actual dollar bills weren’t there, but the money was tied up in his line of credit. Zimmermann said that when he had said “that’s where it is” to the FBI, what he meant was that’s where the money was going. At this point, Zimmermann said he needed to re-read the documents in front of him [I’m assuming these are the transcripts]; he also complained about the reflection of the lights in the courtroom.

Docherty projected page 19 of the transcript of Zimmermann’s interview with the FBI. Page 19 shows Agent Bisswurm asking Zimmermann where the $5000 is, and Zimmermann at first says he doesn’t know what $5000 he’s talking about. A bit later, Zimmermann says he knew, adding that Carlson had said he was going to contribute [to the campaign] but didn’t.

Docherty then asked Zimmermann about these statements; Zimmermann said he knew if he didn’t reveal much to the FBI, they’d show him another tape. Zimmermann explained that his lie was the result of panic, not a calculated lie. He then shot back at the prosecutor, “some people script their lies.” This time the prosecutor ignored Zimmermann’s comment and continued with his line of questioning.

Docherty said to Zimmermann, “so you lied when you said he [Carlson] hadn’t given the money to you…” Zimmermann said it was “not a white lie, a lie of kindness, but not a calculated lie, either.”

The prosecutor turned back to the portion of the transcript in which Zimmermann is quoted as saying to the FBI that he hadn’t seen that $5000. Docherty said to Zimmermann, “when asked, you said Carlson hadn’t given you the $5000.” Zimmermann explained that Carlson was contributing to the lawsuit through him [Zimmermann], so the money didn’t really go to Zimmermann.

Docherty showed page 20 of the FBI transcript, with Zimmermann saying he gave Carlson Leventhal’s name. Docherty asked, “you didn’t really give him Leventhal’s name, did you?” and Zimmermann repeated that he had confused Carlson with another contributor.

Docherty then displayed page 22 of the transcript: Agent Bisswurm is asking Zimmermann if he had received any other cash from Carlson. Zimmermann repeatedly says no. The prosecutor asked Zimmermann, “were you planning to hold out?” and Zimmermann said, “I wanted to see what they had.” Docherty then asked, “you did all this calculating while you were in a state of panic?” and Zimmermann answered yes. Docherty fired back at him, “when did it [the panic] pass?” Zimmermann said “it subsided.”

Docherty projected page 26 of the transcript. In the interview with the FBI, Zimmermann is quoted as saying he’s in the process of forwarding the money to Leventhal. The prosecuting attorney said, “after seeing the tape, you’re telling [the FBI] a different story.” Zimmermann explained that his line of reasoning was a little askew, and he admitted that at that point in the interview, he was telling part of the truth, that the money “existed.” The prosecutor said, “it was the videotape that did that.” Zimmermann explained that the money was at home in his desk, adding that what he had said wasn’t a lie in the sense that the money was tied up in bookkeeping and in his line of credit at home.

Docherty then said, “but the $5000 cash isn’t [in his desk at home at that point].” He continued, saying to Zimmermann, “if you spent cash at a convenience store, the money still exists—even though you’ve spent it.” Zimmermann said some of the cash was still there—a few hundred dollars and the envelopes [containing $1200]. He said the remaining cash was in a separate place; the $1200 was in his desk drawer, but the cash was in a different file folder under his desk table.

The prosecutor pointed out that Zimmermann had told the FBI that all $5000 in cash was in his desk drawer. Zimmermann admitted that the cash itself, the $5000, was not there. The prosecutor said, “so you meant that you could produced that money in a line of credit?” By way of example, Zimmermann said it was much like when you went to a restaurant with a bunch of people, and they gave you cash and checks and you put the entire bill on your credit card, put the cash in your pocket, and spent it. He said, “that’s what I was doing here; when the time came, I’d write a check.” Zimmermann added, “I said it was all there, in that I was prepared to pay the bill when it’s time to pay it.”

Zimmermann then said that “in retrospect,” it was true that he was confused when he said he told Carlson to send the money directly to Leventhal.

Docherty then referred to the $5000 at the Baja, the $1200 in envelopes at the light rail station, and the $1000 at Zimmermann’s home on August 31^st. He said to Zimmermann, “you’d admitted to the $5000 and to the $1200 [by this point in the FBI interview]. Did the videotapes help you with your panic?” Zimmermann said he didn’t know, that he wasn’t a psychologist. The prosecutor then said “let’s look at the facts: before you saw the tape, you denied getting the $5000. But after the tape, you admit to it. So surprise, your panic is over. So then Agent Kukura asked if you’re sure there was no more money.” Zimmermann interjected, “that’s not what he asked me. You’re misconstruing what I said.” [I think Docherty objected to Zimmermann’s comment as argumentative; this time Judge Montgomery overruled the objection.]

The prosecutor then said Zimmermann had claimed to receive no money other than the $1200, then admitted to receiving the $5000 [remember, he’s reviewing the taped interview with the FBI]. Docherty showed a portion of the transcript again; the FBI agent is asking Zimmermann if “there’s any other money you want to admit to receiving?” Docherty asked Zimmermann to explain. Zimmermann replied, “Why would I want to admit to more? The agent is asking if there’s any money I want to admit to receiving, and I said no—I didn’t want to admit to receiving the $5000!”

The judge decided it was a good time for all of us to stretch a minute.

[I think at this point, the prosecutor said something about Zimmermann playing word games in order to dodge the truth.]

Docherty projected page 38 of the transcript. Bisswurm is asking Zimmermann, “so the $5000 is still in the drawer”? Zimmermann replies “um hmm.” [Zimmermann then said something about all $5000 being there, but I didn’t catch the wording.] Bisswurm then says, “I’m going to ask you if Carlson gave you any other money.” After seeing the tape [during the FBI interview], Zimmermann admits to receiving $1000 in envelopes with no name, saying that because there were no names, there was “nothing we could do with it.” Docherty played the tape showing Zimmermann putting his cell phone on top of the envelope containing $1000; right before this, Carlson had said, “that’s for getting us that zoning.”

Docherty continued showing the transcript of the FBI meeting, focusing on a section in which Zimmermann is saying the money is still at home. The prosecutor asked him what he meant. Zimmermann replied, “I could get the money using my credit card, borrow it from a friend—I have a business, so money goes in, money goes out.” The prosecutor says, “so you’re not talking about the 10 $100 bills you received on August 31^st.”

The prosecutor continued showing the transcript of the FBI meeting. Bisswurm is asking Zimmermann, “is the money in the same desk as all the rest?” Zimmermann says “I think so, in a green envelope.” The prosecutor pointed out that the money wasn’t there—not the original $1000 in the green envelope—“that was spent.” Zimmermann said something about Carlson saying he’d get back to him about that [Carlson had told him to fill in the names himself, saying he’d get back to Zimmermann later].

At another point in the transcript, Bisswurm asks Zimmermann “is the $5000 all still there? The same $5000?” Zimmermann finally says no, adding that he guesses it’s been enrolled in his finances.

On the witness stand, Zimmermann explained how hard the idea [of what happened to the money] was to get across. The prosecutor reminded him that he had at first denied getting the $5000, then said it was all in his desk drawer. He said the agents weren’t “quick” because they “didn’t grasp that you weren’t referring to actual cash.” He then asked Zimmermann, “you lied to the agents during the interview, didn’t you?” Zimmermann replied “that’s correct.”

Docherty then asked him, “Didn’t you lie to the agents at least 10 times?” Zimmermann said he didn’t know, didn’t count. The prosecutor numbers them off for him: (1) Zimmermann said he had told Carlson to send the money to Leventhal; (2) He told the agents he didn’t know what $5000 they were talking about; (3) He said he gave Carlson Leventhal’s name; (4) He said he didn’t receive the $5000; (5) He said he got the $5000 but had sent it to Leventhal; (6) He said he had the money, and it was all at home; (7) He said it was enrolled in his finances. (At this point, Zimmermann interjected, “Which it was.”); (8) He said he hadn’t told Carlson he’d do anything for him. (Again, Zimmermann interjected, saying “that was not a lie”); (9) Zimmermann said that when he received the money at the Baja, he was surprised. [Either I missed one, or the prosecutor got around to discussing only 9.]

The prosecutor followed up on this last item, saying that eight days before, at the Black Forest, Carlson had said he was going to Florida until Monday, but he would meet Zimmermann then and get the money to him. Carlson called on June 14^th and said he had the money to give to him, and then he did.

Docherty turned to Zimmermann on the witness stand and said, “you said you were surprised about getting the cash, but you didn’t hand it back or say you’d rather have a check; instead, you put the money in your pants pocket, got something out of your rucksack, and sat down. Carlson and you discussed zoning, parking problems, crime, and licensing issues—and the business at the Village Market?” Zimmermann said he didn’t know. Docherty said, “isn’t all of this official city business?” Zimmermann said these were all issues the developer had to deal with to get his project done. The prosecutor then replied, “but that wasn’t the first time. Aren’t people talking to you about these things because you’re on City Council?” Zimmermann said yes. The prosecutor continued, “you put the money in your pocket. Out of your backpack [he may have said “rucksack”], you got out an email from Heyer about zoning and gave it to Carlson.” Zimmermann said “he happened to throw me the envelope, but there’s no connection between the two.” When the prosecutor said something about Zimmermann putting the money in his pocket with one hand and pulling out the email with the other, Zimmermann corrected him, saying he thought he had performed both actions with the same hand.

Docherty then asked Zimmermann, “didn’t you and the attorney [Leventhal] discuss hanging onto the money to cover costs? The statute of limitations was not yet over on September 8^th, 2005. Yet you told the FBI you were in the process of turning the money over to the lawyers.” He pointed out that there was a discrepancy in Zimmermann’s testimony. Docherty continued, “So once again, the agents just didn’t understand the precision of your language?”

The defense objected, and the judge overruled the objection.

At this point, the judge dismissed the jury until 1:30 for lunch.

After the jury returned from lunch, the prosecutor continued to cross-examine Zimmermann. He projected page 58 of the FBI transcript on the screen for the jury. FBI Agent Kukura is asking Zimmermann, “so no bills from your campaign were paid with the money?” Zimmermann says the money was put into a pool to pay the lawyer [I think he mentioned Leventhal’s name here].

Docherty then turned Zimmermann’s attention to events at the light rail station on August 15^th. He mentioned that Zimmermann had claimed Carlson was “babbling on.” The prosecutor projected page 16 of the transcript of that meeting, where Carlson is saying “is it possible you could get zoning for that? [referring to the Somali mall] and Zimmermann replies, “yeah….I think it’s [zoned for?] retail.”

Docherty pointed out that while Zimmermann had claimed on the witness stand that Carlson was “babbling,” he thought the discussion was pretty focused. Zimmermann replied, “sometimes he was babbling, sometimes coherent.”

Docherty then showed Exhibit 39, the credit card check for $5000, and explained that the prosecution had just gotten the check yesterday at 8:00, after the prosecution had rested its case. Zimmermann assented, saying he had found the check on Saturday in his office, which was located on the second story of his house. The prosecutor asked him if there were other rooms [on that floor]. Zimmermann said yes, there was a bathroom, a dressing room, a laundry area, a utility room, a bedroom, and offices in the center. Zimmermann explained that he had found the checks in files containing credit card history which were kept in milk crates—on top of files there. The prosecutor asked him if the check had been in that location the whole time, but he had never looked there before. Zimmermann said no, he hadn’t. Docherty replied, “you know this $5000 is the basis for this charge, yet you don’t look for it until last weekend?” Zimmermann replied, “correct,” adding that he found it on Saturday. The prosecutor pointed out that the subject line read “Gary Carlson, donation,” then asked whether a $5000 donation to FREE would be noteworthy. Zimmermann said yes, that otherwise there would be no indication of what the check was for. Docherty pointed out that Zimmermann had also written [on the back?] something about the check being a $5000 donation from Gary Carlson. Zimmermann explained that it was like writing a note out on a check stub; since the check stub was missing, he had written the note there.

Docherty then asked Zimmermann, “so it was good for you to have this check turn up, especially on the day you would testify. When did you make out this check? Last weekend?” Zimmermann replied no, saying he wrote it on whatever date was on the check.

The prosecutor then said, “you told the FBI you were in the process of sending a check to Leventhal (when the time came).” Zimmermann said, “I thought I’d send it when there was a way for it to be received.” Docherty then said, “so you didn’t mean what your bare words indicated. Don’t you think that’s misleading?” Zimmermann said no, adding that he had voided the check and placed it near his desk in the office.

Docherty then referred to the ethics training Zimmermann had received on February 24^th, 2004. He cited the section of the videotape about accepting things of value from people seeking zoning, as well as the part of the tape dealing with accepting meals. The prosecutor then referred to the Baja meal, asking Zimmermann if he had accepted $5000 in cash plus a meal. Zimmermann said they [he and Carlson] had split the bill. The prosecutor replied, “leaving three one-dollar bills on the table is splitting the bill?” Zimmermann said he left three bills, but he wasn’t sure if they were ones or fives. The prosecutor said “you left bills on the table because you were concerned?” Zimmermann replied that he wasn’t sure it was $3 he left, adding that he always paid his part of the bill, but he didn’t figure up the amount to the penny.

Docherty showed Government Exhibit 63, a photo showing the alley off 17^th Street. He pointed out that there was no retaining wall, but there was none on the other side (the south side) of the alley, either. Zimmermann said that was not part of the trade proposal [with PRG]. The prosecutor said “you have no personal relationship with that person [across the alley], but Ms. Mayo is your former partner.”

Docherty referred to Government Exhibit 1, dated August 22, 2003. He pointed out that there was no mention of a retaining wall in that agreement. Zimmermann said he wasn’t sure and had never seen the agreement. Docherty pointed out that Mayo had received $5000 at closing. He drew the jury’s attention to paragraph 2.5 on page 2 which mentioned the settlement. He then asked Zimmermann what the retaining wall would be worth--$2000-3000? Zimmermann said he had only heard the costs mentioned in this courtroom. The prosecutor then showed Exhibit 2, the email to Wetzel-Mastel, that said Mayo had no money to build her own wall.

Docherty then turned Zimmermann’s attention to the May 20^th evening meeting at the Shriners. Zimmermann testified he had no memory of seeing Carlson that night, but he admitted he had seen the Ward card with his home number written at the top of it. Docherty asked him if he had written out the number for Carlson; Zimmermann said he wrote the number out at some point, but didn’t remember when.

Docherty once more brought up the Black Forest fundraiser when Carlson had said “I need your help with a vote,” and Zimmermann replied, “you got it.” Zimmermann said he didn’t remember what vote Carlson was referring to. Docherty shot back, “so you’d say ‘you got it’ is your standard response?” Zimmermann said something about liking to be helpful. The prosecution then said Carlson had mentioned lobbying the Planning Commission, and Zimmermann asked Carlson to send him an email.

At this point Docherty replayed the audiotape for the jury. The prosecution told Zimmermann, “the actions you were going to take sound specific.” Docherty then asked, “Wasn’t it at the Shriners where you learned what this project was about?” Zimmermann said he didn’t know.

Docherty then brought up the issue of cousins, playing the audiotape from the Black Forest. We hear Carlson ask, “what can I do for you,” and Zimmermann respond, “money, money, money.” Carlson refers to their previous conversation at Portland and Franklin and to Zimmermann’s “legal problems.” Zimmermann asks if he means the redistricting lawsuit, and he suggests Carlson donate a token portion of $4,000 or $5,000. Carlson replies, “I’ll take care of that for you,” adding that Zimmermann shouldn’t tell Azzam about it, that it’s only between the two of them. He then asks, “you’ll take care of that vote for me?” and Zimmermann replies, “you got it.”

Later in the tape we hear Zimmermann say “you want to do more, that’s fine,” explaining that although the limit is $300 per person or $600 per couple, Carlson could get a cousin or something to donate, or “give in his name.” Carlson says yeah, you got it, I’ve got several of them [cousins], and he and Zimmermann laugh.

The prosecutor then turns to Zimmermann and asks, “Refresh your memory?” Zimmermann replied that he had suggested that Carlson talk to his family. The prosecutor mentions more talk of cousins and plays a portion of the tape from the Baja. We hear Carlson referring to someone as a “loose cannon” and saying that “we need you to be our Council Member”; shortly after that, Carlson refers to cousins and asks Zimmermann, “how do I do that? You can’t get elected on $300.” Carlson says something about Zimmermann’s Ward being a poor Ward and asking again, “how do I do it?” Carlson says something about the phone book, and Zimmermann suggests he donate cash because “nobody knows or cares.” He then suggested that Carlson write a check to someone for $350 and then have that person write a check to Zimmermann for $300.

The prosecution turned to Zimmermann on the witness stand and said, “you’re suggesting Carlson give people money…the donation is from Carlson, but it’s in someone else’s name.” Docherty continues to play the tape, and we hear Zimmermann say, “just don’t tell me about it.” Docherty then said something about Carlson telling Zimmermann not to tell Azzam about the money. [On tape, Zimmermann had said he wouldn’t say a word.] The prosecutor said, “you consider cash to be sensitive.” Zimmermann said he agreed to be quiet because he thought Carlson didn’t want Azzam to know because Azzam was Carlson’s business partner. Docherty then said, “but the FBI aren’t your business partners, yet you denied receiving the money to them.”

At this point the defense objected, and the judge overruled the objection.

Docherty then turned to the August 3^rd meeting at the Chicago Commons sales office, where Carlson had asked why his zoning hadn’t changed even though he had donated $5000. Zimmermann said he didn’t recall that part, so Docherty played the tape for him. We hear Carlson say, “we did the $5000…I know you tried, but you got no support…What happened?” The prosecution pointed out to Zimmermann that he had never tried to disabuse Carlson of the notion that there was a connection between the money Carlson had given him and the zoning Carlson wanted. At no point, he said, did Zimmermann ever tell Carlson that the zoning and the $5000 weren’t related. Docherty asked Zimmermann, “you never say Carlson is mistaken about the connection between the two. The context, with the $5000, didn’t matter?” Zimmermann said he often ignored discussions about money. The prosecution shot back, “when you took the money, were you ignoring it then?” Zimmermann said he didn’t see the link. Zimmermann then said there was no discussion of the $1000, but he acknowledged that at some point Carlson did say “this is for getting the zoning,” adding, “or I believe that’s what he said.”

The prosecution then brought up the issue of the “straw man” candidate, James Gorham. Zimmermann said he didn’t know if Gorham was a campaign worker when he signed up as a candidate. Zimmermann acknowledged that Gorham helped the Zimmermann campaign take people to the polls. The prosecution pointed out that Gorham was not returning calls at that time, so he wasn’t running an active campaign. He reminded Zimmermann that the latter had told Carlson [on tape] that Gorham was a straw man.

Docherty then turned the discussion to whether Zimmermann had actually talked to anyone about Carlson’s zoning. Zimmermann said he was told by Schiff that C2 zoning wasn’t going to help Carlson. From that point, Zimmermann said, he believed Carlson’s zoning request had little or no hope of getting passed. On June 15^th, after the Baja meeting, Zimmermann had a conversation with Carlson about Collins’s research: he pointed out that it was the first time Zimmermann had worked on Carlson’s issue. [I think the prosecution is pointing out here that Zimmermann wasn’t motivated to work on Carlson’s issue until after he had received the $5000 from Carlson.]

The judge dismissed the jury for a short recess.

Once the jury returned to the courtroom, the prosecutor turned the discussion back to the Black Forest and Zimmermann’s promise to keep quiet about the money. Docherty asked him if he told Carlson he’d keep the issue quiet “to Azzam and everybody.” Zimmermann said “correct.” Docherty said, “at the Baja, Carlson says be quiet about the monetary exchange—but he didn’t mention Sabri.” Zimmermann acknowledged that to be true.

In response to Docherty’s questions, Zimmermann said he didn’t want to admit to the agents that he had received $5000 and $1000. The prosecutor said, “there’s nothing shameful about raising money for a lawsuit.” Zimmermann said, “it looked like something it wasn’t, and I had pretty much spent all of it.” The prosecution suggested Zimmermann didn’t want to admit it because it was “dirty money.” Zimmermann replied, “no, I didn’t want to talk to the FBI at all.” The prosecutor reminded him that the agents had begun the interview by telling him he was free to leave at any time.

Zimmermann was then turned over to the defense for follow-up questioning. Scott asked about the discussion with Docherty that had occurred about 10 or 15 minutes before the break. At that time, Docherty had asked Zimmermann about the money and his memory of it. Scott asked Zimmermann, “you needed your memory jogged about the fundraiser?” and Zimmermann replied “correct.” Scott presented Exhibit 16 and showed the transcript of the Black Forest meeting. Carlson is joking about Zimmermann’s age, saying that something [I didn’t catch all of this] looks bad for a “39 year old guy,” then follows that comment up immediately with a request for “a minute” of Zimmermann’s time; he then referred to the “vote thing” and zoning. Zimmermann asks, “where are we on that?” saying it slipped his mind. On the tape, the two agree about their assessment of Lilligren (“a pain in the ass”); at that moment, the Zimmermann supporters in the courtroom laughed. The tape continued playing, and we hear Zimmermann saying he “had done a little something on that” [the zoning issue].

Scott stopped the tape and turned to Zimmermann, saying that the prosecutor had reminded him that on June 15^th, during a phone call, he said he had spoken to Schiff about the zoning. On June 16^th, Carlson had sent an email about the businesses he wanted; Zimmermann and Collins’s notes were on the email (written on or after that date). Scott pointed out that Zimmermann was in fact working on the zoning issue, and that he came to the conclusion after that that he couldn’t get the zoning unless new information turned up.

Scott then showed Exhibit 39, the credit card check for $5000 to FREE dated July 19^th, 2005. Zimmermann had said he showed the check to Tom Taylor that summer; it was in existence before Tom came over to Zimmermann’s house. Zimmermann again explained that he had found the check last Saturday; he hadn’t looked for it before that but did so then. Scott asked him if he had been encouraged to look for it, and he said Scott didn’t encourage him, adding that the issue for the lawyers was how he got the $5000, not what he did with it.

Scott then showed Exhibit 40, saying that was also why the fact that the check for $6000 was written six months later wasn’t really relevant. Zimmermann said no, it wasn’t [relevant].

Scott turned Zimmermann’s attention to the meeting at his house on August 31^st, when Carlson had given him an envelope containing $1000 in cash and when Carlson had mentioned zoning. Scott asked Zimmermann if the discussion was about zoning or the new Somali mall. Zimmermann said the mall. Scott asked him, “when you got the $1200—what was the purpose of the meeting that day?” Zimmermann said he thought it was the Somali Mall. Scott then asked him, “Did you think either contribution had anything to do with your actions?” Zimmermann said “no, nothing.”

The prosecutor then returned to ask Zimmermann a few more questions. He began by saying, “[Defense attorney] Scott asked if you were able to get what Carlson wanted. By June 15^th or 16^th, you had come to the conclusion that you weren’t.” Zimmermann said he didn’t think the zoning Carlson wanted would actually get Carlson what he wanted. Docherty said, “you never told Carlson that unless something new came up, you couldn’t help him. You told Carlson that you’d spoken with every Zoning and Planning member, you said you’d checked with Orange, you said there was always room for improvements. You were never concerned the money would then stop flowing if you told him?” Zimmermann said no. Docherty pointed out that part of the discussion about the Somali mall on August 15^th was zoning, and on August 31^st, when Zimmermann took the money, Carlson had said it was for zoning “over there.”

Both the defense and the prosecution announced they had completed their questioning of Zimmermann. He left the stand and the defense called Agent Bisswurm to testify.

Seventeenth witness (called by the defense): Timothy J. Bisswurm

Scott began his questioning by referring to Bisswurm as “Mr.,” then corrected himself and called him “Agent.” He asked Bisswurm if he was one of the people who had handled the evidence in this case, and Bisswurm said yes. Scott then played a tape: it was the voicemail from Zimmermann to Carlson, admitted as Exhibit 41. The voicemail came from Carlson’s phone [cellphone?] on Friday, May 27^th; the time for the message was given as 3:17pm; the agent said he pulled the message off Carlson’s machine at around 1:45pm on June 1^st. Scott played the tape for the jury. We hear Zimmermann’s voice saying “I don’t know how I can help you [at 2401 Chicago Avenue South]. They’re taking parking off because the sidewalk is closed—that’s really absurd, that’s what they’re saying, though…I’ll get back to you.” The defense points out that this voicemail message was recorded nine days before Zimmermann and Carlson met at the Black Forest.

The defense rested its case and the judge dismissed the jury for a 15 minute recess.

While the jury was recessed, the attorneys conferred privately with the judge. [sorry, folks, I wasn’t privy to that discussion]

The jury was summoned. Once all members of the jury were seated in the courtroom, Docherty said he had no further evidence. Judge Montgomery announced that the evidentiary phase of the trial was concluded.

The jury was dismissed until 9:30 Wednesday morning, August 9^th, 2006.

Once the jury had left, Scott announced that the defense had nothing to add to the trial. He said he wanted to renew Rule 29; Judge Montgomery said she was maintaining the same ruling she had previously, adding that the conditions [for dismissal] were not met.

The attorneys and judge left the courtroom and the trial recessed until 9:30 the next morning.