Friday, September 24, 2021

Feds hint at "developments" in case against former Lynn Haven mayor and three others (Tom McLaughlin, The Panama City News Herald)

There will be a supersding indictment in Lynn Haven corruption case.  


Feds hint at "developments" in case against former Lynn Haven mayor and three others

Tom McLaughlin

The Panama City News Herald

September 23, 2021 

LYNN HAVEN — The federal criminal trial of former Lynn Haven Mayor Margo Anderson and three co-defendants was postponed Friday as prosecutors hinted that they are refining their existing indictment in the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker ordered the trial, which had been scheduled to get underway on Sept. 27, continued until Oct. 26. He ruled after U.S. Attorney Andrew Grogan informed him of "developments in the case." 

Grogan did not indicate the nature of the developments, but said more information will be released in the near future when a superseding indictment is filed.

"The interest of a speedier trial is outweighed" by "a superseding indictment to be filed," Walker said in agreeing to delay the trial.

Lynn Haven:Federal indictment of Lynn Haven mayor and city attorney hinted at corporate wrongdoing

More:Federal judge tosses cornerstone conspiracy charge in case against former Lynn Haven mayor

Also of interest:Lynn Haven corruption: 3 plead guilty, facing prison time

Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Jacksonville Division Rachel Rojas speaks to media on Aug. 19, 2020, at the Panama City branch office. Lynn Haven Mayor Margo Anderson and Lynn Haven City Attorney Joseph Adam Albritton are the subjects of a federal indictment.Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Jacksonville Division Rachel Rojas speaks to media on Aug. 19, 2020, at the Panama City branch office. Lynn Haven Mayor Margo Anderson and Lynn Haven City Attorney Joseph Adam Albritton are the subjects of a federal indictment.

Walker said the Oct. 26 date would serve only as a placeholder and that he anticipated a status conference would be held on that day rather than an actual trial.

Anderson was originally indicted by federal authorities in August 2020 along with former Lynn Haven City Attorney Adam Albritton. Each faced more than 60 criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud, wire fraud and embezzling federal funds.

The indictment was amended and new charges were added to those Anderson and Albritton already faced when James Finch, the owner of Phoenix Construction, and former Lynn Haven City Commissioner Antonious Barnes were brought into the case alongside them. 

The four originally were charged with conspiring to defraud the city of Lynn Haven and the federal government in the wake of Hurricane Michael and multiple counts of honest services fraud and wire fraud.

The second indictment was filed in March of this year. In August, in response to motions made by the defendants, Walker tossed out the conspiracy charge the federal government had relied upon to build its case against the four as co-conspirators.

NHC watching disturbance headed for Florida; Hurricane Larry to send heavy surf to East Coast

$125K in double-red flag fines? 1,700 rescues? Swimmers have kept PCB busy this year

Want to catch pythons for cash? Panama City's Kurt Cox knows a thing or two.

Walker wrote in his ruling that while he saw clear intent to conspire in three of five "projects" he looked at to determine whether conspiracy allegations held up against the group, in two others he did not and due to that he could find no alternative but to toss the entire charge.

Dismissal of such a charge, Walker said, should not be employed when a less drastic ruling will suffice, "but, in this case a less drastic ruling will not suffice."

"It is simply not possible to disentangle the allegations," Walker said.

Walker noted in making his August ruling that because allegations stemming from the alleged conspiracy between Anderson, Albritton, Finch and Barnes were "incorporated throughout" the charges spelled out in the March indictment, his ruling that it be thrown out "could make other counts subject to dismissal."

"This court, however, declines to address this issue or any other until raised by the parties," Walker wrote.'




No comments: