The U.S. attorney’s office, in response to a motion by public corruption defendants former El Paso County Judge Luther Jones and county District Clerk Gilbert Sanchez that the government waited too long to charge them with conspiracy and other crimes, contends simply that it did not.

In the motion they filed last week, Jones and Sanchez argued that the specific acts in two counts of their five-count indictment on May 28 occurred more than five years before -- too late to be prosecuted under the federal statute of limitations.

The government responded on Monday that in those counts, Jones and Sanchez are accused of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud and that conspiracy is not a crime that is quickly over and done with but one that can cover multiple acts and is not complete until the last act is committed. (Download copies of response and original indictment below)

The indictment, the response states, cites events that occurred before May 28, 2004 but alleges that the conspiracies continued beyond that date and included specific acts in June and July of 2004.

“On June 4, 2004, Sanchez appeared before El Paso County Commissioners Court and recommended Jones’ vendor receive the multimillion-dollar contract,” the response states. “Sanchez made these representations to fulfill the terms of the fraudulent scheme, securing the contract for Jones’ vendor.”

When Commissioners Court decided not to award the contract, the motion states, Sanchez or Jones committed additional acts in an unsuccessful effort to complete the deal.

The defendants made the same argument regarding the third count of the indictment, a mail fraud charge, arguing that the alleged crime involved mail that was sent more than five years before the indictment even though it arrived afterward.

The government’s response brushes the defense argument aside, noting that the indictment alleges the defendants caused and item “to be sent and delivered,” and that crime covers the actual delivery.

Arguing against the defendants’ motion to dismiss the fourth and fifth counts of the indictment, the government states that they fail to offer “any legal authority whatsoever supporting their motion to dismiss Count Five, charging aiding and abetting bribery.”

The government alleges that Jones’ bribery of Sanchez began in October 2003 and ended in July 2004.

Sanchez is accused of bribery and aiding and abetting bribery because he allegedly agreed to accept something worth more than $5,000 in exchange for his influence.

Jones, in Count Five, allegedly violated the same law, which makes it a crime when someone “corruptly, gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization or of a state” with anything worth $5,000 or more.

“The quid pro quo requirement is satisfied as long as the evidence shows ‘a course of conduct of favors and gifts flowing to a public official in exchange for a pattern of official actions favorable to the donor,” the government states, citing case law.

* * *

To reach David Crowder, write to dcrowder@epmediagroup.com or call (915) 351-0605, ext. 30, or 630-6622.

Related Documents: