CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Federal prosecutors have submitted a guide to the evidence they plan to use for the impending trial of West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Allen Loughry.
The memorandum was one of several documents submitted by prosecutors in advance of the trial’s Tuesday start. Another was a set of proposed jury instructions.
Loughry faces 25 federal charges accusing him of mail fraud, wire fraud, tampering with a witness and lying to federal agents. The case revolves around Supreme Court spending and Loughry’s use of a state vehicle and a state-issued purchasing card.
Controversy has swirled over Loughry and the Supreme Court for a year, starting with television news reports about exorbitant spending on office renovations. So the start of the trial will bring that story to a head.
Federal prosecutors outlined plans to present evidence about Loughry’s use of state vehicles and a fuel card, about how the Code of Judicial Conduct might apply to the case and about the use of a Supreme Court video relevant to the history of ‘Cass Gilbert’ furniture.
“All of the evidence discussed above is important to the government’s case in chief, for each bit supplies a piece to the puzzle the United States must complete to establish defendant Loughry’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” prosecutors wrote.
Some of the charges against Loughry allege fraudulent use of a state vehicle and gas purchasing card. Prosecutors say they plan to use records to lay out the proof.
They also intend to show Loughry was, specifically, the person using the car and card.
“Proof that defendant Loughry was that someone comes through records such as the Supreme Court reservation system, his personal calendar, and his personal credit card records.”
Prosecutors also intend to produce circumstantial evidence from location data from Loughry’s cell phone.
One of the allegations against Loughry is that he took an antique ‘Cass Gilbert’ desk from the Supreme Court and moved it to his own home.
Prosecutors intend to introduce part of a film on the history of the West Virginia Supreme Court, narrated by Senior Status Justice Thomas McHugh, who is also expected to testify at the trial.
At one point, prosecutors say, the film shows the justices including Loughry walking into the chambers while the narrator discusses architect Cass Gilbert’s influence on the court’s design.
“The mere fact that the Supreme Court produced a film featuring Cass Gilbert and his designs and handiwork and put it on the Court’s website for all to see makes it more probable than not that defendant Loughry would also have had an appreciation for Cass Gilbert’s importance to the Supreme Court,” prosecutors wrote.
“This would, in turn, be relevant to defendant Loughry’s motive and intent in taking a Cass Gilbert desk from the Supreme Court and keeping it in his home for over four years as alleged in the indictment.”
Federal prosecutors also provided a proposed set of jury instructions that include definitions of the charges Loughry faces.
The proposed jury instructions note that those who serve are supposed to decide based on evidence:
“You are to perform this duty without bias or prejudice as to any party. You are not permitted to be governed by sympathy or public opinion.”
The significant attention over Loughry’s case has produced concern over identifying an impartial jury.
During a pretrial hearing earlier this month, the lawyers from both sides and U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver discussed how big the jury pool would have to be to gather 12 impartial jurors.
“In a case such as this, with the publicity that has taken place, could it be or has it ever been the court’s practice to have more extensive voir dire?” asked Loughry’s attorney, John Carr.
Copenhaver agreed, “A considerable number of these jurors have not only heard about the matter, but they’ve followed it.”
The lawyers agreed that although a typical jury pool might number about 30, about twice that might be needed because of the circumstances surrounding Loughry.
Copenhaver proposed starting with a jury pool of 65 to 70. “We may put up another group on a contingency basis,” the judge said.