Tuesday, September 30, 2008

When Not Guilty Can Mean More Prison Time

ABC News recently had an interesting article discussing one of the most widely debated aspects of the current U.S. federal sentencing regime - receiving an increased sentence for acquitted conduct. The story begins by discussing the story of Roger White.

When Roger White helped his brother and his brother's girlfriend rob a bank in Maysville, Ky., he led police on a high-speed, 17-mile chase down country roads before he finally crashed his car and was caught.

At his 2003 trial, White, the getaway driver, was convicted of aiding the bank robbery, but the jury acquitted him of several other charges involving the use of a gun during the robbery and escape.

Nevertheless, a judge found that there was sufficient evidence that shots were fired during the robbery and subsequent police chase to add nearly 14 years onto White's prison sentence, more than doubling it even though a jury found White not guilty of most of the gun charges.

White's case, now pending before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, raises questions about whether defendants should be sentenced to longer prison terms based on evidence that a jury either never heard or has rejected.

Several federal judges have said the practice violates the constitutional right to a jury trial and a few have called on the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1997 decision, in U.S. v. Watts, upholding increased prison sentences based on so-called "acquitted conduct."

This is not an uncommon occurrence, and the ABC article goes on to discuss other similar examples and touches briefly on current cases moving through the appeals process and, perhaps, eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For a more in depth analysis of the issue of sentencing for acquitted conduct, one might want to review the case of United States v. Ibanga, 454 F. Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. Va. 2006) (subsequently vacated and remanded by the 4th Circuit). The court in Ibanga declined to sentence the defendant to an additional ten years based on acquitted conduct under the theory that it would be "constitutionally questionable."

After an eleven-day trial, a jury acquitted defendant Michael Ibanga of all of the drug distribution charges against him and one of the two money laundering charges against him in the Indictment. The single count of which defendant Ibanga was convicted typically would result in a Guidelines custody range of 51 to 63 months. However, the United States demanded that the Court sentence defendant Ibanga based on the alleged drug dealing for which he was acquitted. This increased the Guidelines custody range to 151 to 188 months, a difference of about ten years.

Although the Sentencing Guidelines require that district courts include acquitted conduct under certain circumstances when calculating a custody range, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3, comment. (backg'd.) (Nov. 2005)…, the Court declined to sentence defendant Ibanga on this basis. Sentencing a defendant to an extra ten years in prison for a crime of which he was acquitted is constitutionally questionable and would not serve the statutory sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Court therefore sentenced defendant Ibanga to 55 months in prison, a term of incarceration that would have fallen in the middle of the Guidelines range had the acquitted conduct not been included in the calculations. This opinion explains the Court's reasoning…

Punishing defendant Ibanga for his acquitted conduct would have contravened the statutory goal of furthering respect for the law and would have resulted in unjust punishment for the offense for which he was convicted (i.e., money laundering). 18. U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). From defendant Ibanga's perspective, a Guidelines sentence would certainly have resulted in confusion as to the law, and confusion breeds contempt. Defendant Ibanga is an immigrant to this country who has not had the benefit of extensive education, much less an intensive law school seminar on post-Booker sentencing practices. What could instill more confusion and disrespect than finding out that you will be sentenced to an extra ten years in prison for the alleged crimes of which you were acquitted? The law would have gone from something venerable and respected to a farce and a sham.

From the public's perspective, most people would be shocked to find out that even United States citizens can be (and routinely are) punished for crimes of which they were acquitted. See Coleman, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 671 n.14 ("A layperson would undoubtedly be revolted by the idea that, for example, a person's sentence for crimes of which he has been convicted may be multiplied fourfold by taking into account conduct of which he has been acquitted.") (internal quotations omitted)…

The court goes on to conduct a thorough analysis of the historical role of the jury and concludes, "It would only confirm the public's darkest suspicions to sentence a man to an extra ten years in prison for a crime that a jury found he did not commit."

Former British Airways Executive Pleads Guilty - Nine Companies and Two Other Individuals Have Already Pleaded Guilty

According to a DOJ Press release, a British citizen and former British Airways Executive has agreed to plead guilty, serve eight months in jail and pay a criminal fine for participating in a conspiracy to fix rates for international air cargo shipments.

According to the charges filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, Keith Packer, former Commercial General Manager for British Airways World Cargo, and his co-conspirators engaged in a conspiracy to fix the air cargo rates charged to customers for international air shipments, including to and from the U.S., in violation of the Sherman Act. Under the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval, Packer has agreed to serve eight months in jail, pay a $20,000 criminal fine and cooperate with the Department’s ongoing investigation.

Packer is the first foreign national and third individual charged as part of the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation into price fixing in the air transportation industry. Additionally, nine companies have been charged.

"The cost of shipping products in and out of the United States is a critical component of our economy and a price that every American business and consumer bears," said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division’s Criminal Enforcement Program. "Those who conspire to cheat U.S. businesses and consumers by fixing shipping rates will be held accountable."

Numerous others, including nine companies, have been charged in the matter. All have pleaded guilty.

In August 2007, British Airways Plc pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay a $300 million criminal fine for conspiring to fix cargo rates for international air shipments, including to and from the United States, and conspiring to fix passenger fuel surcharges for long-haul international air transportation, including between the United States and United Kingdom. The same day, Korean Air Lines pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay a $300 million criminal fine for conspiring to fix cargo rates charged to customers in the United States and elsewhere for international air shipments and conspiring to fix wholesale and passenger fares for flights from the United States to Korea.

In January 2008, Qantas Airways Limited pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay a $61 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix cargo rates to customers in the United States and elsewhere for international air shipments.

In May 2008, Japan Airlines pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay a $110 million criminal fine for conspiring to fix rates for international cargo shipments.

In July 2008, Bruce McCaffrey, Qantas’ former highest-ranking executive employed in the United States, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve six months in jail and pay a $20,000 criminal fine for fixing cargo rates to customers in the United States and elsewhere for international air shipments.

Also in July 2008, SAS Cargo Group A/S (SAS), Cathay Pacific Airways Limited (Cathay), Martinair Holland N.V. (Martinair), Société Air France (Air France) and Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) pleaded guilty to conspiring to fix prices on air cargo rates. SAS was sentenced to pay a $52 million criminal fine, Cathay was sentenced to pay a $60 million criminal fine, Martinair was sentenced to pay a $42 million criminal fine, and Air France-KLM, which now operates under common ownership by a single holding company, was sentenced to pay a $350 million criminal fine.

In August 2008, Timothy Pfeil, the former highest-ranking cargo executive in the U.S. for SAS, pleaded guilty to conspiring to fix the rates charged to U.S. and international customers on air cargo shipments.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Ex-CIA Official Pleads Guilty in Virginia

The Washington Post has a nice article detailing the events leading to today's guilty plea by former top CIA administrator Kyle "Dusty" Foggo.

The CIA's former top administrator pleaded guilty today to steering agency contracts to a defense contractor and concealing their relationship, making Kyle "Dusty" Foggo the highest-ranking member of a federal intelligence or law enforcement agency to be convicted of a crime, officials said.

Foggo admitted in U.S. District Court in Alexandria that he conspired to defraud the United States in his relationship with Brent R. Wilkes, a California businessman. Prosecutors say Wilkes subsidized meals and vacations for Foggo and his family, and that Foggo helped Wilkes get lucrative contracts, including one in which the CIA was bilked when it paid 60 percent more than it should have for water supplied by a Wilkes-affiliated company to CIA outposts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Foggo, a longtime logistics officer, was the CIA's executive director from November 2004 until May 2006, holding the agency's third-ranking position and one in which he directed daily CIA operations. He was accused of using his seniority and influence at a prior CIA job in Europe to help Wilkes, a longtime friend. It's one of the first cases that has involved the CIA's clandestine operations in Europe and the Middle East.

Although Foggo, 53, pleaded guilty to one count of fraud conspiracy, prosecutors agreed to dismiss the 27 other counts against him and to recommend a sentence of no more than 37 months in prison. U.S. District Judge James C. Cacheris, after accepting Foggo's plea, took the unusual step of telling Foggo that his lawyers "have done a good job for you in this case." Under federal law, Foggo could receive a prison term as high as 20 years when he is sentenced Jan. 8.

The WSJ Law Blog mentioned the case and Foggo's defense attorney, Mark MacDougall from Akin Gump, in its Lawyer of the Day series. According to the WSJ, after accepting Foggo’s plea, Judge Cacheris reportedly told Foggo that his lawyers “have done a good job for you in this case.”

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Don't Throw Away the Benefits of Your Bargain

The WSJ Law Blog is reporting that Bill Lerach, the plaintiffs lawyer who is serving a two-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to participating in a scheme to pay kickbacks to lead plaintiffs, was recently transferred from a prison camp to a medium security prison. The transfer stemmed from his having offered his San Diego Chargers season tickets to a guard at the camp outside Santa Barbara earlier this year. Lerach's new home will be in Phoenix and will likely include double fences with electronic detection systems and cell-type housing rather than dormitories.

No one is going to argue that a prison camp is nice, but it is certainly more comfortable and safer than a medium security facility. Further, the move takes Lerach further from his home and medium security facilities typically have more restrictive visitation policies. One must assume that his placement in a prison camp in California was one of the factors he considered when deciding whether to accept a plea deal. Offering tickets to a prison guard seems to be an obviously inappropriate act for a prisoner and a careless way of throwing away some of the benefits of his bargain.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Plea in Case of Largest Data Theft in History

On September 11, 2008, Damon Patrick Toey entered a plea of guilty to charges including wire fraud, credit card fraud, and aggravated identity theft stemming from the largest data theft in history. Toey and others stole information on tens of millions of customers from TJX Cos. and BJ's Wholesale Club. According to federal prosecutors, the group also breached the security of many other companies.  The Boston Globe had extensive coverage of the hearing.

At a hearing in federal District Court in Boston yesterday afternoon, Damon Patrick Toey, 23, of Miami, pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including wire fraud, credit card fraud, and aggravated identity theft. Prosecutors alleged he helped the accused ringleader, Albert Gonzalez, to break through the computer security of a number of retail stores in the Miami area.

Gonzalez himself appeared at a second hearing later in the day and pleaded not guilty to a set of similar charges.

Prosecutors said both men were key players in a loose-knit ring spanning countries from China to Ukraine that stole or trafficked in more than 40 million payment cards in all, causing more than $400 million in damages. The ring initially accessed customer data by using laptops to penetrate wireless networks of retail stores, from which they were able to access the companies' servers.

At the hearing for Toey yesterday, Assistant US Attorney Stephen Heymann elaborated on his role in the scheme. Toey first helped Gonzalez steal money from automated teller machines in the New York area in 2004, then became more involved in stealing and selling card data from vulnerable retail computer networks, according to Heymann and previous government filings. Last year he lived rent-free at Gonzalez' Miami condo, the government said.

When asked by Judge William G. Young why he was entering the plea, Toey said prosecutors "have enough, other than what I'm pleading guilty to," on him, "that would make it a lot worse, in my opinion."

It was the longest utterance of the day for Toey, who said he had an eighth-grade education. He entered his plea even though his defense attorney, Syrie Fried, and prosecutors hadn't agreed on just how much in losses his actions caused, which could affect his eventual sentence. Technically he could face more than 30 years in prison, judge Young said at one point.

Young released Toey on probation, at least temporarily, to a location in the Norfolk, Va., area, where Fried said he grew up and has family. Toey will be subject to electronic monitoring, face travel restrictions, and be barred from using computers.

And in a separate court filing yesterday, Heymann wrote the government has evidence that Toey and his coconspirators hacked into "numerous other businesses." The filing did not disclose the businesses, and Heymann did not release any more details in court. In all, more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers were stolen by the conspirators, Heymann wrote, potentially victimizing hundreds of banks that issued the cards.

For those interested in the notion of "aggravated identity theft," here is the statute - 18 USC 1028A.
(a) Offenses.—
(1) In general.— Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
(2) Terrorism offense.— Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in section 2332b (g)(5)(B), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person or a false identification document shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
(b) Consecutive Sentence.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
(1) a court shall not place on probation any person convicted of a violation of this section;
(2) except as provided in paragraph (4), no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this section shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person under any other provision of law, including any term of imprisonment imposed for the felony during which the means of identification was transferred, possessed, or used;
(3) in determining any term of imprisonment to be imposed for the felony during which the means of identification was transferred, possessed, or used, a court shall not in any way reduce the term to be imposed for such crime so as to compensate for, or otherwise take into account, any separate term of imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for a violation of this section; and
(4) a term of imprisonment imposed on a person for a violation of this section may, in the discretion of the court, run concurrently, in whole or in part, only with another term of imprisonment that is imposed by the court at the same time on that person for an additional violation of this section, provided that such discretion shall be exercised in accordance with any applicable guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 of title 28.
(c) Definition.— For purposes of this section, the term “felony violation enumerated in subsection (c)” means any offense that is a felony violation of—
(1) section 641 (relating to theft of public money, property, or rewards [1]), section 656 (relating to theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee), or section 664 (relating to theft from employee benefit plans);
(2) section 911 (relating to false personation of citizenship);
(3) section 922 (a)(6) (relating to false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm);
(4) any provision contained in this chapter (relating to fraud and false statements), other than this section or section 1028 (a)(7);
(5) any provision contained in chapter 63 (relating to mail, bank, and wire fraud);
(6) any provision contained in chapter 69 (relating to nationality and citizenship);
(7) any provision contained in chapter 75 (relating to passports and visas);
(8) section 523 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6823) (relating to obtaining customer information by false pretenses);
(9) section 243 or 266 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253and 1306) (relating to willfully failing to leave the United States after deportation and creating a counterfeit alien registration card);
(10) any provision contained in chapter 8 of title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.) (relating to various immigration offenses); or
(11) section 208, 811, 1107(b), 1128B(a), or 1632 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 40810111307 (b)1320a–7b (a), and 1383a) (relating to false statements relating to programs under the Act).

Detroit May Get a Trial After All

According to the NYTs, Christine Beatty, the former chief of staff to Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, has rejected a plea deal and will go to trial on perjury and other felony charges.

The aide, Christine Beatty, whose racy text message exchanges with Mr. Kilpatrick began the scandal that led to his resignation, refused proposals from prosecutors that called for her to serve two to five months in prison and pay $125,000 in restitution to the city. Ms. Beatty’s lawyer, Mayer Morganroth, dismissed a five-month sentence as “unreasonable” and said she would rather fight the charges before a jury. A conviction on all charges could result in a sentence of 19 to 30 months.

For months, Ms. Beatty, who is charged with lying under oath when she swore that she had not had a sexual relationship with her married boss, had been widely expected to make a deal with prosecutors that would secure her freedom in exchange for testifying against Mr. Kilpatrick. But instead it appears that Mr. Kilpatrick, who will leave office on Thursday after he pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and no contest to assault charges, will be called to testify against Ms. Beatty. He will serve
four months in jail.

Ms. Beatty resigned in January from her $142,000-a-year job as Mr. Kilpatrick’s top aide, two days after The Detroit Free Press published text messages from her city-owned pager that suggested she and the mayor were romantically involved. She and Mr. Kilpatrick were accused of firing two police officers to prevent exposure of their relationship.Last year, the city agreed to an $8.4 million settlement with those officers and a third officer who filed a related lawsuit. Members of the City Council say Mr. Kilpatrick duped them into settling the suit without revealing the existence of a side deal barring the officers’ lawyer from releasing the damaging text messages.

For previous posts on this case, see here and here.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Real Estate Developer Closes Big Deal

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Raffaello Follieri, the Italian real estate developer, has entered into a deal with prosecutors in New York in relation to his alleged involvement in a real estate investment scheme.

In the indictment, prosecutors accused Mr. Follieri, the chairman and chief executive of the Follieri Group, of getting millions of dollars from investors by claiming that his connections with the Vatican allowed him to buy church properties at below-market prices and redevelop them for “socially responsible” purposes. Mr. Follieri had no special rights in terms of buying properties but was simply competing against other bidders, the indictment said.

Instead, the government said, he used money he received from investors to finance a lavish lifestyle including a $37,000-a-month apartment, meals and clothing. The charges accused him of misusing more than $2 million.

According to the WSJ, the deal includes four to five years in prison. Interestingly, the deal included a count of money laundering, which, under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, often leads to a higher sentence than fraud or conspiracy charges. 

Appearing in Federal District Court in Manhattan, the businessman, Raffaello Follieri, 30, pleaded guilty to 14 counts of wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy. He had used his contacts to attract investors to real estate ventures.

He is scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 3. Under the plea bargain, he has agreed not to appeal any sentence that is less than five years and three months.

The plea requires Mr. Follieri to give up $2.4 million, 12 watches and 9 pieces of jewelry. The watches included a Rolex, a Cartier, a Harrods and a Donald Trump. The jewelry included a gold-colored ring with light blue-green stone, a pair of silver earrings with silver clasps and blue and clear stones, a 16-inch five-strand necklace with pearl beads, and a 32-inch gold-colored chain with a red-brown stone and gold-colored tassel. Under the proposed deal, Follieri would plead guilty to fraud and money-laundering and face roughly four to five years in prison. 

Broadcom Co-Founder Plea Deal Rejected by Judge

We discussed a while ago the plea bargain entered into by Henry Samueli, co-founder of Broadcom. The deal would have allowed for probation for Samueli's alleged role in a stock-options backdating scandal. Last week, however, Judge Cormac J. Carney rejected the bargain, stating that the proposed punishment would not be sufficient.  He stated, "The court is not alone in concluding that a five-year probationary sentence does not capture the seriousness of Dr. Samueli's alleged misconduct."  The Wall Street Journal Law Blog had a nice discussion of what happens next. 

What are the options for prosecutors and Samueli in the wake of Carney’s ruling? They asked the judge for time to renegotiate their plea deal to address the court’s concerns, including the fact that Samueli didn’t agree to cooperate with prosecutors in cases against other former executives, such as former CFO, William J. Ruehle, or co-founder Henry T. Nicholas III, who were charged earlier this year with securities fraud. They pleaded not guilty.

Samueli could also withdraw from the agreement, in which case he could be criminally charged, or he could agree to stick with the current agreement and let the judge sentence him. The statutory maximum sentence for lying to the SEC is five years in prison.

New DOJ Guidelines for Corporate Prosecutions in Response to KPMG Case

The Wall Street Journal had a nice editorial a couple of weeks ago regarding the events leading to the removal of the 2006 "McNulty Memorandum" in favor of revised corporate guidelines that expressly bar prosecutors from forcing organizations and their employees to waive numerous fundamental rights, including the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and the constitutional right to counsel. 

Congratulations to Lewis D. Kaplan, the federal judge whose withering critique of prosecutorial abuse in the KPMG tax-shelter case was vindicated yesterday by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

In fact, you can double that applause, because yesterday the Justice Department went further and once again rewrote its white-collar prosecution guidelines to accommodate Judge Kaplan's demolition. Whether Justice anticipated its legal defeat before the surrender is less important than the fact that it has now restored a measure of due process fairness to corporate defendants and their employees.

The new standards, released by Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, are the latest repudiation of the "Thompson Memo" -- and go far enough to dump it entirely. Drafted amid the Enron political inferno of 2003, the Thompson Memo gave federal prosecutors in white-collar crime cases sweeping powers that often shaded into abuse: For example, prosecutors were told they could punish an entire company if it declined to waive attorney-client privilege or cut off payment of legal fees for employees under investigation.

The result is that businesses had an incentive to admit "guilt" and throw employees over the side even when they believed what they did was legal. The practice also bludgeoned middle-level employees into premature plea deals, lest they be bankrupted merely for trying to defend themselves. Judge Kaplan had dismissed tax-evasion charges against 13 KPMG defendants on grounds that prosecutors violated their Sixth Amendment right to counsel by pressuring KPMG to cut off legal assistance. Justice appealed and has now been routed. Under the new guidelines, credit for cooperation will depend on a firm's disclosure of the relevant facts, not any waiver of privilege or work-product protections.

Congress also deserves credit for promising legislation to curtail such abuses. Sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter, the draft law has the support of business groups, but also the American Bar Association, the ACLU and even liberal Democrat Pat Leahy. You've lost everyone when that's your opposition.

Justice's long delay in admitting error here doesn't speak well of prosecutorial discretion these days. There is legitimate doubt about the substance of the KPMG cases, given that the tax shelters involved had never been ruled illegal by a tax court before the indictments were brought. Prosecutors should have to win their cases in court, not by beating defendants into submission with an abuse of due process. Congress may still want to consider legislation, as a way to prevent such abuse after KPMG is forgotten.

ABA President H. Thomas Wells Jr. issued a statement applauding the removal of the "McNulty Memorandum," but noted that the ABA desires further reforms. 

While the new guidelines are a welcome improvement over the McNulty Memorandum, the rights of American employees and the businesses they work for are too important to be subject to constantly shifting administrative policies.  The Department’s new guidelines are its fifth such policy in ten years and can be changed again at any time.  Unlike legislation, guidelines can provide no certainty that critical attorney-client privilege, work product, and employee constitutional rights will be protected in the future.  These bedrock legal rights are sacrosanct and must not be dependent on the personal leanings of each new deputy attorney general.  As a result, legislation like S. 3217 and H.R. 3013, the “Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act,” is urgently needed to permanently solve the problem of government-coerced waiver.

The new Justice Department policy also does nothing to change the similar policies adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or the informal waiver practices of many other agencies.  Such policies, like the Justice Department’s previous policy, pressure organizations to waive their privileges and violate their employees’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to receive cooperation credit during investigations.

While the ABA supports and appreciates the Department’s new policy, that policy cannot, standing alone, reverse the widespread “culture of waiver” created by all these federal policies—a culture that is seriously undermining both the confidential attorney-client relationship and basic employee rights in the corporate community.  Comprehensive legislation is the only way to make the Department’s reforms permanent, give them the force of law, and apply them to all federal agencies.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Detroit's Mayor Pleads Guilty - Agrees Not to Run for Office

Detroit's Mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, has pleaded guilty to two felony counts of obstruction of justice related to a scandal involving text messages between Kilpatrick and his former chief of staff that contradicted previous sworn testimony by the two. Under the terms of the agreement, Kilpatrick will remain in office for only 14 more days, at which time he will resignation and begin serving a 120 day sentence. Interestingly, the agreement also includes a provision prohibiting him from seeking public office during a five year probation period. Reading from a prepared statement, Kilpatrick stated, "I lied under oath in the case of Gary Brown and Harold Nelthrop versus the city of Detroit. . . I did so with the intent to mislead the court and jury and to impede and obstruct the fair administration of justice." As for the related charges of assault stemming from an altercation with authorities who were attempting to serve one of Kilpatrick's friends in the perjury case, the judge accepted a no-contest plea.

Read the Wall Street Journal Law Blog article on the plea agreement here.