A guilty verdict | Inside Johnny Doc’s Trial newsletter

Welcome back, court watchers, to a special verdict edition of the Inside Johnny Doc’s Trial newsletter.

In case you missed it: The jury on Thursday convicted John Dougherty on embezzlement charges after roughly 14 hours over three days of deliberations, delivering his second federal felony conviction in as many years.

The panel also had guilty verdicts for his codefendant Brian Burrows, the former president of Dougherty’s union, Local 98 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Both men are now facing substantial prison time on the most serious counts at their sentencings, scheduled for March.

We’ve got plenty of behind-the-scenes details for you from decision day as it unfolded in court, and analysis of what the jury’s verdict means for the legacy of one of the region’s most transformative labor leaders.

Let’s get to it.

— Jeremy Roebuck and Oona Goodin-Smith (@jeremyrroebuck, @oonagoodinsmith, insidejohnnydoc@inquirer.com)

If someone forwarded you this email, sign up for free here.

📮Do you have a question about the trial? Email us back and we might answer it in our newsletter.

📋 The jury found Dougherty guilty of 66 counts including conspiracy, embezzlement, and tax and wire fraud. It convicted Burrows of 21 counts, concluding that he, Dougherty and others embezzled more than $600,000 from the union to enrich themselves. Here’s how jurors decided each count.

⚖️ If Dougherty’s first trial exposed his political kingmaker status as one bought through trading favors and bribes, his second laid bare his routine cheating of the very union electricians he professed to have done it all for.

👨‍⚖️ U.S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl set Dougherty’s sentencing date for March 20 — five days before the ex-union chief is due to stand trial again in an extortion case stemming from threats he allegedly made to a contractor who employed his nephew.

Within minutes of Thursday’s verdict, reactions to the jury’s decision poured in from all corners. And let’s just say everyone had a different opinion on what it all meant. Here’s a sampling:

This is a case where all the members who paid these people’s salaries basically had their pockets picked by them, and we’re glad we could finally hold them accountable for that.

After 10 years of this and millions of dollars, what did [the government] do? They moved off the board a powerful union that fought for working people. And if you think the 4,700 members of Local 98 are better off today than they were before, then you’re fooling yourself.

It was a complicated case. The jury elected to believe Tony Massa, and the case was over … Everything else just fell in line.

» READ MORE: ‘You are still a liar’: Defense attacks key government witness in John Dougherty’s embezzlement trial

He has done so much for the city and the fabric of Philadelphia. You cannot undo the great job he’s done for working men and women in Philadelphia.

F— cookie tray.

» READ MORE: Prosecutors final focus before resting their case? A 50-cookie tray paid for with union funds

Though prosecutors won convictions on almost all of the charges they’d brought against Dougherty and Burrows, each man was acquitted on three counts apiece. We were left wondering what led jurors to those decisions.

Two of Dougherty’s “not guilty” verdicts — one count each of wire fraud and embezzlement of union assets — were tied to the same $572 Ikea purchase in February 2015.

Prosecutors said the ex-labor leader’s nephew Brian Fiocca had used Dougherty’s Local 98 credit card to buy a mattress and bed sheets and that Dougherty had later described the expense as “campaign office set-up” supplies as he sought reimbursement from the union.

Pagano insisted Dougherty had no idea what Fiocca, who worked at Local 98 and was sometimes given his uncle’s credit card while running union errands, was charging to it.

“The fact of the matter is the kids were abusing these credit cards,” the defense lawyer said during closing arguments of Fiocca and two other Local 98 employees whom Dougherty often tasked with running errands. “When he learned about it, he revoked those credit cards.”

The jurors’ decision to acquit on those counts appears to suggest that they weren’t persuaded by government evidence that Dougherty signed off on the expense.

The third count on which Dougherty was acquitted was a tax fraud charge involving more than $20,000 in home renovations, improvements, and repairs the union paid for in 2012 at his Pennsport home; the house of his sister Maureen Fiocca, who lived next door; and Doc’s Union Pub, a bar in which he and Burrows held financial interests.

Burrows, too, was acquitted on two tax fraud counts stemming from similar renovation benefits he received at his house in Mount Laurel in 2012 and 2013, all covered by union coffers.

Prosecutors said the men failed to report the cost of the free labor they received as income on their annual tax filings.

Burrows was also acquitted on one count of embezzlement — a charge tied to more than $26,000 in repair work done at Dougherty’s house in 2016. Witnesses testified at trial that Burrows signed off on the invoice sent to Local 98.

But while the jury concluded it couldn’t convict Burrows for misspending that money, it found Dougherty guilty of the same charge.

66: Number of counts of conspiracy, embezzlement, falsification of union financial reports, and wire and tax fraud on which Dougherty was convicted Thursday.

21: Number of counts on which the jury found Burrows guilty.

3: Number of counts on which both men were acquitted. In Dougherty’s case, that was one count each of embezzlement, wire fraud and tax fraud. Burrows was cleared on one embezzlement count and two tax fraud charges.

14: Hours spent by the jury over three days in closed-door deliberations before reaching their decision.

20: Maximum years in prison Dougherty faces on the most serious counts on which he was convicted, a series of wire fraud charges. It’s also the maximum sentence for honest services fraud, the most serious counts on which Dougherty was convicted in his 2021 bribery case alongside Bobby Henon.

5 years: Maximum sentence Burrows is facing on his most serious counts, conspiracy and embezzlement of union assets.

33: Number of witnesses whose testimony helped jurors make up their minds. All but one were called by the government.

20: Length, in days, of Dougherty’s second trial — from jury selection to the verdict. And much like the defendants, lawyers, jurors and court staff, your newsletter writers are looking forward to a day off.

There were the usual signs of a verdict coming soon — more prosecutors and federal agents than usual filing into the courtroom, usually chatty supporters of the defendant going silent, and the somber look of anticipation that drops like a veil over the faces of everyone involved in the case.

We saw all that Thursday just moments before Schmehl, the judge, entered the courtroom to announce that the jury had reached its decision. He warned Dougherty’s backers in the gallery against any outbursts.

“This is a courtroom,” he said. “This is a solemn and serious occasion.”

And it was.

As the jury began reading the lengthy verdict sheet, one “guilty” after another for several minutes, the courtroom was silent. Dougherty, his eyes cast downward, pursed his lips and kept his palm pressed flatly against the defense table. Burrows looked stoically and silently ahead.

Family and friends seated behind them silently exchanged handshakes and hugs after jurors were escorted from the room by court security.

Dougherty, before making his way out the door, paused to shake hands with Burrows and his attorneys. Then, he thanked the judge’s staff.

The trial may be over, but Dougherty’s legal woes are not. Expect another edition of this newsletter in your inbox Monday, where we’ll look ahead at the sentencings for Dougherty and his codefendants, appeals, and where Local 98 stands now.

👋 We’ll see you here Monday.

By submitting your written, visual, and/or audio contributions, you agree to The Inquirer’s Terms of Use, including the grant of rights in Section 10.