A juror was dismissed Monday after reporting that a woman dropped a bag of $120,000 in cash at her home and offered her more money if she would vote to acquit seven people charged with stealing more than $40 million from a program meant to feed children during the pandemic.
“This is completely beyond the pale,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson said in court on Monday. “This is outrageous behavior. This is stuff that happens in mob movies.”
These seven are the first of 70 defendants expected to go to trial in a conspiracy that cost taxpayers $250 million. Eighteen others have pleaded guilty, and authorities said they recovered about $50 million in one of the nation’s largest pandemic-related fraud cases. Prosecutors say just a fraction of the money went to feed low-income kids, while the rest was spent on luxury cars, jewelry, travel and property.
During the trial that began in April, defense attorneys questioned the quality of the FBI’s investigation and suggested that this might be more of a case of record-keeping problems than fraud as these defendants sought to keep up with rapidly changing rules for the food aid program.
I don’t know. I saw similar situations recently in the Narcos series on Netflix. Innocent people were placed into situations in which they had to either (a) break the law for considerable compensation or (b) not break the law and suffer horrible consequences. I guess in that situation, the best you can do is to pack up as soon as possible and hide somewhere. There’s really nothing else. If someone has the financial means and audacity to bribe a juror with $120k over a case with 70 defendants defrauding $250 million from the government, they likely have the means to order a hit on you and your family. It’s a terrible situation to be in, and I would love to know how this has been handled in the past, how they are going to handle it now, and what the outcome will be.
There’s no indication that this group attempting to bribe her are violent, and there was no explicit or implied violent “or else” threat, at least none mentioned in the AP and Star Tribune articles.
that’s true. I might be hyper- vigilant or reactive to those kinds of things.
I think the act itself implies the threat. If they have those resources and are willing to brazenly break the law like that no actual threat is needed.
Even if they aren’t violent and have no intention of being so the implication is there.