CHARLESTON, W.Va. — In a new filing meant to combat one of Justice Allen Loughry’s motions for a new trial, federal prosecutors describe the justice as vindictive and willing to lie to take down others.
Federal prosecutors filed their response to Loughry’s second motion for a new trial on Friday. Loughry’s first motion for a new trial is under seal.
MORE: Read prosecutors response to Loughry’s second motion for a new trial.
Loughry was convicted in October on 11 charges including wire fraud, lying to federal investigators and witness tampering.
He resigned from the state Supreme Court, effective this past Monday. But his fight for a new trial continues.
Prosecutors counter that Loughry doesn’t provide enough evidence for a new trial on most of the counts.
On the witness tampering charge, prosecutors come out firing.
Loughry was accused of intimidating Supreme Court employee Kimberly Ellis, attempting to put words in her mouth while knowing grand jury proceedings were likely imminent.
“From all of the foregoing evidence, including the fraud evidence, the jury could have reasonably concluded not only that Kim Ellis was credible, but that defendant Loughry was not credible, that he was vindictive and vengeful when crossed, and that he would not hesitate to flex his power and authority to get what he wanted,” prosecutors wrote.
Ellis had worked on the remodeling of Loughry’s office, including his expensive couch and inlaid wooden floor.
On October 18, 2017, the Supreme Court received a media inquiry about the costs.
The next day, Ellis was summoned to the office of then-court Administrator Gary Johnson. Loughry was there, along with financial officer Sue Racer Troy and two in-house attorneys.
Ellis, who months earlier had received a call from Loughry questioning her loyalty, felt ill at ease and used her cell phone to record the meeting.
Loughry can be heard declaring that he’d told Ellis he didn’t want his office remodeling expense to be more than then-Justice Menis Ketchum’s or Justice Margaret Workman’s.
“But I was very specific over and over and over, that whatever we spend on anything, I don’t want mine to be more than Menis or Margaret’s.”
He then asked Ellis, “Do you recall those conversations?”
Ellis responded that she did not remember.
Loughry later said, “I swear I thought you had papers that showed the expenditures in Davis – not Davis, in Menis and Margaret’s offices.”
Ellis had not worked on those offices, though.
After the Oct. 19, 2017, meeting Ellis was moved from her office to
another office between the offices of the two administrative counsel, Chris Morris and Lori Paletta-Davis.
The two lawyers had attended the meeting, sitting on either side of defendant Loughry.
The day after that, Oct. 20, 2017, Loughry contacted then-U.S. Attorney Carol Casto to report wrongdoing connected with outrageous spending at the Supreme Court, including spending on renovations of his office.
Prosecutors said the jury had the opportunity not only to weigh Ellis’s testimony but also that of Racer Troy, former Justice Brent Benjamin and court security personnel Jess Gundy and Art Angus.
“The jury evaluated their words, demeanor, and ultimately, their credibility, and weighed their credibility against the credibility of the defendant, who, in his testimony, went so far as to accuse Benjamin of lying on the witness stand,” prosecutors wrote.
“That accusation fit a pattern – that defendant Loughry would retaliate against those who questioned or criticized him by accusing them of engaging in possible criminal activity.”
In fact, prosecutors wrote, Loughry did that over and over.
“He did that very thing in 2016, by calling the United States Attorney’s Office about spending by Robin Davis, who had questioned defendant Loughry’s travel.
“He made another accusation in October 2017 by calling United States Attorney Casto about the outrageous spending at the Supreme Court and blaming Steve Canterbury, after it became apparent that Mr. Canterbury had discussed the spending with the news media.
“And he did it again in February 2018, when he called Special Agent Lafferty to report possible wrongdoing by Justice Workman in connection with the preparation of a will.”
Because Loughry himself testified, the jury had the opportunity to decide whether to believe him, prosecutors wrote.
“Not only did the jurors hear his words, but they also observed his demeanor, his body language, and his manner of testifying, and they weighed his testimony against the other evidence.
“Quite apparently, the jury did not believe him.”