Having a plan to funnel money into your Court of Appeals race go into effect the exact same day that you decide to hold a hearing on whether to reduce a jury award. Oh, and also where the person who enacts the money-funneling plan was the owner of the nursing home against whom the jury award had been imposed.
Let’s back up...
Can they lock him up for this? I hope so.
Dude is fricked
In case of tl;dr: the guy who owned a nursing home that had a $5.2 million judgment against it bought Mike Maggio by setting up PACs and funneling money to him. Most of those PACs only sent money to Maggio, and the PACs were registered the same day that Maggio decided to have a hearing to lower the jury award of $5.2 million. When it was time for the hearing, Maggio reduced the award to the exact amount that the nursing home owner's insurance would cover, meaning that the nursing home owner paid nothing besides the amount he funneled to Maggio.
Subtitle 5 - Offenses Against The Administration Of Government
Chapter 52 - Corruption in Public Office
§ 5-52-101 - Abuse of public trust.
5-52-101. Abuse of public trust.
(a) A person commits the offense of abuse of public trust if the person:
(1) Solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept on behalf of any person, political party, or other organization any benefit from another person upon an agreement or understanding that the other person will or may be appointed a public servant or designated or nominated as a candidate for public office;
(2) Offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit and the receipt of the benefit is prohibited by this section;
(3) Solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit as compensation or consideration for having as a public servant given a decision, opinion, recommendation, or vote favorable to another or for having otherwise exercised his or her discretion in favor of another; or
(4) Offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon a public servant and the receipt of the benefit is prohibited by this section.
(b) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or use of discretion, except for the benefit, was otherwise proper.
(c) Abuse of public trust is a Class D felony.
Do you really need a confession or witness testimony to get a conviction in a case like this? Is circumstantial evidence not enough? Because the circumstantial evidence is damning.
They don't have to prove that to remove him from the bench and disbar him however.
The circumstantial evidence alone is enough
especially since he didn't disclose any conflicts of interest in making his ruling.
Money was funneled through PACs, how is he supposed to know he even got money from that person? And on the day of his ruling, even.
So you expect a normal reasonable person to conclude all this happening was just a coincidence when he reduced the award to the exact amount insurance would pay?