Judge denies Kilpatrick bid for new lawyer in corruption trial

From [HERE] If Kwame Kilpatrick thought he was setting himself up for his long promised comeback by asking for a new lawyer, he may want to rethink his strategy, legal experts said Tuesday.

If he was looking for a delay in his upcoming public corruption trial, that didn't work. And if he was looking for grounds for appeal should he be convicted, that likely won't work either, the experts said, weighing in on the news that the former Detroit mayor lost his request for a new lawyer. Kilpatrick asked for new counsel Tuesday, saying he no longer trusts his longtime attorney James Thomas because of a conflict of interest that he recently discovered. Thomas also asked to be removed from the case.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds denied the request, a decision Thomas said could trigger an appeal down the road. Kilpatrick could claim ineffective counsel, but legal experts predict it won't work -- especially given Thomas' lengthy history with Kilpatrick. "It's a lawyer that he had for five years that he did want," said Arkansas attorney John Wesley Hall, who wrote a book on ethics and responsibilities of criminal-defense lawyers.

Hall said Kilpatrick will have to prove he was "significantly prejudiced" at trial by something Thomas did, which will be difficult.

"And the 6th Circuit (U.S. Court of Appeals) has never been defendant-friendly in the first place," added Hall, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Other defense and prosecutorial experts echoed similar sentiments.

"Just the fact that he wants a new attorney or prefers a new attorney ... that doesn't in and of itself equate to ineffective counsel. He's going to need something to happen at trial that he can point to," said San Francisco public corruption expert Wes Porter, who has been closely following the case. "This is a tough claim to make."

Porter conceded Kilpatrick may in fact have some issues with Thomas.

"I very much imagine that he's having a communication breakdown with his attorney. I would imagine that it's sincere," Porter said. "But that doesn't mean he's entitled to a new attorney -- especially this late in the game."

Kilpatrick's request for a new lawyer came three weeks before the trial is set to start on Sept. 6. Jury selection proceedings are already under way in the high-profile public corruption trial.

Kilpatrick; his father, Bernard Kilpatrick; ex-water boss Victor Mercado, and contractor Bobby Ferguson are charged with running a criminal enterprise through the mayor's office to enrich themselves. They are charged with several crimes, including bribery, extortion and fraud.

Kilpatrick said his request wasn't a delaying tactic and involved a conflict of interest that he only recently discovered with Thomas. It centers on one of Thomas's former clients, towing contractor Gasper Fiore.

Fiore is one of the government's witnesses in the case and has alleged that he was extorted for $50,000 by Kilpatrick and Ferguson, according to court records.

To avoid any issue at trial, the prosecution said it was willing to drop Fiore from the case and not call him to testify.

Edmunds also told Kilpatrick that he had signed a waiver of conflict in 2011 that specifically named Fiore.

"Any third-year law student" understands waivers, Edmunds told Kilpatrick, who was a lawyer until his disbarment after the text message scandal. "And you're a smart guy."

Throughout the hearing, Kilpatrick stressed that he did not have any trial experience as a lawyer, and his legal skills were limited.

"If I was that good of a lawyer, I would have never gone to prison for cheating on my wife," Kilpatrick said, referring to his 2008 conviction for obstruction of justice.

Edmunds said that isn't an issue in this case. In denying Kilpatrick a new lawyer, she concluded that Thomas "has been an excellent and diligent lawyer in this matter" and it is in the public's best interest to move forward with the trial. Citing the prosecution's argument, Edmunds noted that when Kilpatrick could afford his own lawyer, he chose Thomas.

"When Mr. Kilpatrick ran out of money, he asked me to appoint Mr. Thomas, which I did," Edmunds said.

She also reminded Kilpatrick that at a recent meeting in her chambers, where a conflict of interest issue was being discussed, "The first thing out of your mouth was how much you love Mr. Thomas."

Kilpatrick responded: "I do love Mr. Thomas. I never said I trusted him."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Chutkow didn't buy any of Kilpatrick's arguments and said he was "simply pushing for a delay."

Kilpatrick said: "I'm not afraid of this trial. I'm not afraid to start this trial. ... I believe that there needs to be a person sitting next to me that I can absolutely trust."

Prominent local defense attorney Bill Swor said Edmunds made the right call in leaving Thomas on the case, especially considering the government agreed to drop the controversial witness.

"He's a great lawyer whose integrity is without question," Swor said of Thomas. "the judge can see how hard he has been working, and the faithfulness for which he served his client."

Swor also noted that if defendants are paying for their own lawyers — which Kilpatrick is not — they can change attorneys at any time as long as it doesn't delay the case.

"The court has an obligation to move cases along, and if the court cannot see any potential harm to a defendant, then the court has to bring a case to trial," Swor said.

After the hearing, Thomas appeared unfazed by Kilpatrick's comments, telling reporters: "Isn't he something?"