Va. ex-gov appealing convictions to Supreme Court
RICHMOND, Va. — Ex-Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell will his appeal corruption convictions to the U.S. Supreme Court, his lawyer said Tuesday, shortly after a federal appeals court declined to revisit the case.
But McDonnell's lawyer, Henry W. Asbill, refused to say whether his client will have to report to prison soon to begin serving his two-year sentence. He has remained free on bond since a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld his convictions in July.
In a statement, McDonnell said he was very disappointed in Tuesday’s ruling but looks “forward to the day when vindication is obtained and my family’s good name is fully restored.”
“I am innocent of these charges. In my 38 years of public service to my country and the commonwealth, I have never misused my office nor ever promised anyone anything in exchange for money,” McDonnell said.
McDonnell could file a petition asking that he remain free until the Supreme Court decides whether to take his case. But Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who closely follows the Richmond-based appeals court, said it's likely that McDonnell will have to report to prison.
In its brief order Tuesday, the full 15-member 4th Circuit said eight judges voted against reconsidering the panel's decision to uphold McDonnell's convictions. Seven others, "deeming themselves disqualified, did not participate," the order said. No explanation was given for what Tobias called an unusually large number of recusals.
McDonnell had been Virginia's attorney general, the state's chief prosecutor, from 2006 until 2009 when he resigned to run for governor. McDonnell, who received his law degree in 1989, was suspended effective Jan. 29, about three weeks after he was sentenced on his corruption convictions.
Barry J. Pollack, a white-collar defense attorney in Washington who has followed the McDonnell case, said McDonnell's failure to get a single appeals court judge to agree to rehearing will not affect his chances of getting the Supreme Court to take the case.
The Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions each year and hears 75 to 80 cases — less than 1% of the total requests — in its nine-month session that begins on the first Monday in October.
"The Supreme Court's primary consideration is going to be the gravity of the issues and whether they feel there has been enough of these cases that there's confusion among the judicial circuits about what the standard should be," Pollack said.
In September, a jury found McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, guilty of doing favors for wealthy vitamin executive Jonnie Williams in exchange for more than $165,000 in gifts and loans.
The former Republican governor, once widely considered a possible running mate for presidential candidate Mitt Romney, was convicted of 11 counts and was sentenced to two years in prison. His wife was sentenced to one year and one day on eight counts.
Both have been free while they pursue separate appeals.
The appeals court has scheduled oral arguments in Maureen McDonnell's case for late October.
Williams showered the McDonnells with lavish gifts — including a Rolex watch for the governor, about $20,000 in designer clothing for the first lady and $15,000 to pay for catering at a daughter's wedding — while the former Star Scientific Inc. president sought state university research on his company's signature product, according to trial testimony. He also loaned the McDonnells thousands of dollars on exceptionally favorable terms to help them pay off debt and keep their money-losing Virginia Beach, Va., vacation rental properties afloat.
Meanwhile, the McDonnells attended promotional events and hosted a product launch event for Anatabloc, a tobacco-derived anti-inflammatory manufactured by Williams' company. Bob McDonnell also arranged meetings with administration officials for Williams, who wanted not only state university research but also inclusion of Anatabloc in the state's employee health plan.
The former governor has insisted that he provided nothing more than routine political courtesies and access to Williams and that he was convicted under an overly broad definition of bribery.
He also claimed on appeal that his lawyers were not given enough opportunity to question whether any potential jurors had been influenced by intensive news coverage of his case.