Lessons lurking in Fumo's '80 case?

The case was federal, and one of the defendants was State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo. But the year was 1980, and that was another era in Philadelphia politics and in FBI corruption probes.

Fumo was 37 and serving his first term in Harrisburg as the successor to another local political legend - State Sen. Henry "Buddy" Cianfrani, who had been sent to federal prison.

Though the 1980 case is more than a quarter-century old, it shows that Fumo, the powerful Philadelphia Democrat charged Feb. 6 in a blistering federal indictment, has been down this road before - and won.

Though a jury found Fumo guilty, along with former city Democratic Party chief Peter J. Camiel and former State Sen. Thomas M. Nolan, a judge overturned the verdict and acquitted all three - a giant victory for political figures who faced possible prison sentences.

Now, just as military strategists study old wars, lawyers who specialize in federal criminal cases say they expect both sides of United States of America v. Fumo to study the pages of the 1980 trial - especially Fumo's testimony.

"It's relevant and important to both prosecution and defense to examine that," said veteran defense lawyer Nicholas J. Nastasi, who represented Camiel in the posttrial litigation of the 1980 case.

The old case offers insight about how Fumo, as a defendant, conducted himself on the witness stand. It lays out how some of the city's top defense lawyers fought at trial, and on appeal. And, lawyers familiar with both cases said, the 1980 charges have some elements in common with the new indictment.

"It's not an entirely different type of alleged crime," said Center City lawyer Jack Meyerson, who prosecuted the 1980 case when he was an assistant U.S. attorney. Like the current case, he said, the earlier one involved allegations of "abuse of the payroll of the state Senate and using public money for political purposes in Philadelphia."

In the new indictment, Fumo, now 63, is accused of using taxpayer and charity money for political and personal purposes, including using Senate funds to hire a private investigator to tail ex-girlfriends and dig up dirt on political rivals. He also is charged with obstructing justice.

In the 1980 case, Fumo, Camiel and Nolan were accused of scheming to put Democratic Party workers in "no-show" jobs on the state payroll even though they did little or no work for the legislature. The charges - of mail fraud - focused on letters from Fumo and Camiel to Nolan requesting jobs for the no-show workers.

Fumo was on the witness stand for a day.

He testified that he knew some workers on the legislature's payroll were working at Democratic City Committee headquarters, or in his ward office - but that he didn't believe this was wrong.

"Am I correct in that every one of them worked every day wherever they were?" asked Fumo's lawyer, Ronald F. Kidd.

"Yes," Fumo answered.

Kidd: ". . . You didn't think that was a crime?"

Fumo: "No, not at all."

A few days later, the jurors began deliberating - and came back with three convictions.

Visibly shaken, Fumo said he was "crushed" by the verdict. "I feel just utter despair," he told reporters as he left the U.S. Courthouse at Sixth and Market Streets on a rainy October day in 1980.

Fumo later recalled the difficult days that followed. "That was the lowest point in my life," he said in a 1985 Inquirer interview. "It was like going to my own funeral. People were coming around - it was like what I would do when a close friend died - they were coming over paying respects. I didn't want to see anybody for a couple of days."

Months later, U.S. District Judge Clifford Scott Green tossed out the jury verdicts, ruling that prosecutors had failed to prove the three were involved in the specific, single scheme alleged in the indictment.

His decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a ruling that remains a guide for prosecutors.

Mark B. Sheppard, one of Fumo's current defense lawyers, declined to comment on the 1980 case and would not say if the defense team planned to review it.

Nastasi said the new charges were much broader than the 1980 mail-fraud case - and that could mean a more pressing challenge for the defense this time. "It seems there's a lot more for the defense to do in this case to achieve an acquittal," he said.

And he said there's another important difference.

"The biggest distinction between the cases is that in the Camiel case, there was no charge, nor was there any evidence, to show that any accused person benefited personally in any way," said Nastasi.

Fumo also was successful in another criminal case.

Those charges were filed in March 1973, when Arlen Specter was Philadelphia's district attorney. The man who later rose to become Pennsylvania's senior U.S. senator charged Fumo and several other poll watchers with conspiring to violate election law in the 1972 presidential election.

The allegation was that a judge had illegally allowed the men to interfere with poll watchers loyal to Sen. George S. McGovern - whose presidential bid was so unpopular that Cianfrani loyalists feared it would hurt the state senator's reelection chances.

The charges brought by Specter, a Republican, were dropped in 1974 by his successor, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick Jr., a Democrat.

Center City lawyer William A. DeStefano, who represented some witnesses called before the grand jury in the current Fumo case, said the senator's successful fight against two previous criminal cases could bode well: "He's been through this twice before and came out of them both successfully."

Lawyer Peter F. Vaira, who was U.S. attorney then, said that if the 1980 federal case is any guide, Fumo and his current legal team will fight like tigers.

"They put up a good fight there, and they'll do it here," Vaira said. "There's no question about that."

Below are excerpts of State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo's Oct. 17, 1980, testimony at trial on charges that he and others had schemed to put "ghost" workers on a state payroll.

Defense lawyer Ronald F. Kidd: Sir, did you intend to commit a crime?

Fumo: No, sir.

Kidd: . . . No ghost jobs?

Fumo: No.

Kidd: . . . You knew they [five workers named in the charges] were working on the state payroll; is that correct?

Fumo: Yes.

Kidd: . . . In that every one of them worked every day wherever they were?

Fumo: Yes.

He testified that as a Democratic ward leader and legislator, he helped job-seekers and anyone, regardless of party, who asked for help.

Fumo: I have had people come to me when I was a senator talking about marital problems. You know, you are just there; you are a friend for them. I guess you are some kind of authority figure . . . you wind up trying to tell them to calm down. . . .

Kidd: Do you serve the people?

Fumo: Yes.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Frank Sherman cross-examined Fumo about state workers who spent their working day at party headquarters in the mid-1970s.

Sherman: It's your testimony that there's nothing wrong with using funds from the state treasury to pay persons to work the Xerox machine five days a week in Democratic City Committee?

Fumo: Now or then?

Sherman: Then.

Fumo: No.

Sherman: . . . Is it your testimony that at that time, as far as you were concerned, there was nothing wrong with paying out of the state treasury someone working full time at Democratic City Committee, who was carrying messages around for Democratic City Committee, or chauffeuring the chairman of Democratic City Committee?

Fumo: And doing other things. . . . Was that wrong to do that and other things? . . . As far as I was concerned, it was not.

SOURCE: Federal court recordsEndText