The 99 Percent Rule

Member Group : Guest Articles

Call it the 99 percent rule. 99 percent of criminal trials only matter to a
small cadre of participants. Defendants, victims, judges, defense lawyers,
and prosecutors all play their respective roles. And, of course, society has
an abstract stake in it all. But win, lose or draw it is this finite group
for whom the personal stakes are the highest and the outcome truly matters.

But not this trial.

The well-publicized Veon case‹in which former state representative Mike
Veon, along with three co-defendants, is charged with ³bonus gate²
corruption offenses‹is different. It is different because its outcome‹win,
lose or draw‹is likely to affect state government and politics for
generations to come.

Not that this case doesn¹t matter to the defendants. Each of them is on
trial for their liberty and reputations. And each has the right of every
defendant to the presumption of innocence as the trial plays out. Only
zealots will prejudge their guilt. Only the reckless will forecast the
verdict.

Nevertheless, the outcome is going to matter to more than just the
defendants, their lawyers, and the prosecutors.

It will matter because the trial itself marks a sharp turn in the trail for
Pennsylvania: go one way and the state travels down a new, largely unknown
path; go the other and the path looms more familiar, perhaps too familiar.

A brief history lesson must intrude here. Pennsylvania is no stranger to
corrupt politics. Since the late 1970s the executive branch has been free of
major corruption. But historically, the state has suffered from regular and
recurrent bouts of corrupt political behavior. Some of this corruption led
to prosecutions that uncovered a breathtaking scope of official wrongdoing.
Notable among these were the prosecutions of the mid and late 1970s that
resulted in more than 200 indictments, convictions, or resignations of
public officials.

So, the presence of pervasive official corruption is neither new nor
unexpected in the Keystone State. In that sense, the ³bonus gate²
prosecutions are business as usual in a state that has seen more than its
share of corruption.

But what isn¹t business as usual is how these alleged offenses are being
prosecuted. Traditionally, corruption prosecutions in the state have been
undertaken by the U.S. Department of Justice. It was, for example, the feds
who ran the prosecutions during the Shapp administration in the 1970s‹and
who labeled Pennsylvania one of the most corrupt states in the nation. More
recently, it was the feds who prosecuted state senator Vincent Fumo, several
people in and around the administration of Philadelphia mayor John Street,
and court officials in Luzerne County.

Until recently, state officials have not aggressively pursued public
corruption. To be fair, they have been active in pursuing a variety of other
criminal and civil wrongdoings. But they have not systematically attempted
to root out public corruption on a large scale. When that happened‹if it
happened‹it was the federal government that did it.

Until now!

During the last three years, state prosecutors have taken the lead in
bringing corruption charges against state officials‹25 alone in the ³bonus
gate² scandal‹reversing the historic role played in the past by the feds.
For the first time in modern state history, the state itself is aiming its
big guns at public corruption.

Consequently, the Veon trial‹whether it results in a conviction, an
acquittal, or even a hung jury‹is a pivotal moment in political time. The
stakes, already enormous, have only been raised by the recent acquittal of
former state representative Sean Ramaley in the first ³bonus gate² trial.

And what are those stakes?

In the short term, a guilty verdict is likely to mean more trials and more
convictions. Inevitably, it will paint an even larger bull¹s eye on the
backs of would-be corrupt officials. In the long term, a conviction is
likely to spur future state attorneys general to launch even more corruption
investigations and prosecutions. Almost certainly it would cement the
state¹s corruption-busting role, assuring that it will never again abandon
the field to federal prosecutors.

An acquittal or hung jury, on the other hand, unleashes a sharply
contrasting set of consequences. On the heels of the Ramaley acquittal, the
appetite for future trials and future investigations will abate sharply.
It¹s likely to mean a quick end to further probes. And it will also be a
major set back for Tom Corbett and his gubernatorial campaign. Perhaps more
ominously, it may stymie ongoing reform efforts and do little to dissipate
the state¹s embedded tolerance for corruption. And undoubtedly it will mean
future attorneys general will approach corruption investigations warily.

Many will differ about which of these scenarios is preferable because each
ultimately may lead to a very different type of state politics‹indeed, to a
very different state. While few Pennsylvanians will have any influence on
what happens, most will be affected by it for a very long time.

**********************

Politically Uncorrected is published twice monthly. Dr. G. Terry Madonna is
Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College, and Dr. Michael
Young is Managing Partner of Michael Young Strategic Research. The article
can be used in whole or in part with appropriate attribution. The views and
opinions found in this article represent the authors¹ views and opinions and
not those of any institution or organization with which they are affiliated.

Previous columns can be viewed at http://politics.fandm.edu, and Politically
Uncorrected columns with a national focus are archived at
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/g_terry_madonna_and_michael
_young/.