One of the problem with a system geared to pleading guilty is that prosecutors are emboldened to bring questionable legal and factual cases. The Varsity Blues cases are a good example. Numerous folks have criticized the legal theory underlying the prosecution -- that paying someone to get your kid into college is a federal offense. But almost everyone pleaded guilty in that operation because the risks of trial were simply too great.
Finally, we have a few defendants who will be challenging the case in the First Circuit. From the NY Times:
Lawyers for a private equity investor and a former casino executive facing federal prison in the college admissions scandal known as Operation Varsity Blues filed appeals on Monday seeking to have their convictions overturned.
Both men were accused of making payments to have their children admitted to elite universities as athletic recruits, even though prosecutors charged that they lacked qualifications to play Division 1 sports.
The men, John B. Wilson and Gamal Abdelaziz, face the longest sentences yet imposed on parents in the admissions scandal, in which more than 50 parents and college coaches were prosecuted for conspiring with William Singer, a college admissions counselor, to arrange “side door” admissions, primarily by using slots on athletic teams.
Mr. Wilson and Mr. Abdelaziz make similar arguments in their appeals — that donations to universities in an effort to secure admissions are commonplace and do not constitute bribery.
Mr. Wilson, a former business executive, was convicted in October on bribery charges and sentenced to 15 months in prison. He was accused of agreeing to pay more than $1.5 million to have his three children admitted to the University of Southern California, Harvard and Stanford.
Lawyers for Mr. Wilson, 62, of Lynnfield, Mass., say in court papers that the key claim against him — that he paid $220,000 to bribe his son’s way into a spot on U.S.C.’s water polo team in 2014 — is legally flawed.
None of the money was intended to personally enrich anyone at the school, they wrote in court papers.
“Donating to a university is not bribing its employees; the school cannot be both the victim of the scheme and its beneficiary,” said the filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston by lawyers for Mr. Wilson, including Noel J. Francisco, the former U.S. solicitor general.
Of the total $220,000, Mr. Singer forwarded $100,000 as a donation to U.S.C.’s water polo team, for which Mr. Wilson received a thank-you note. Another $100,000 went to Mr. Singer’s nonprofit foundation, which Mr. Wilson thought would benefit U.S.C., according to the appeal.
They not only made "donations" but falsified their children's athletic records among other bad acts. Furthermore, the school can be both the victim and the beneficiary of a scheme. Here, they received money but under false pretenses which led to the placement of their children at these elite institutions. Those types of prosecutions are commonplace and legitimate. Sadly, we live in a time where everyone's on the grift and we're expected to shrug our shoulders.
ReplyDeleteThe Adidas related basketball cases presented an even more questionable legal theory. The universities got exactly what they bargained and their head coaches and AD' assuredly knew the players we being paid. At what point are these universities responsible the dealings and knowledge of their top coaches and administrators while raking in millions rather than being cast as victims. The notion that these universities are victims does not pass the smell test.
ReplyDeleteAlthough my kids are very talented and got into tier 1 universities on their own merit, I believe if I was extremely wealthy, and I could make a donation similar to what Mr. Singer and Wison did, to benefit the lives of my kids I believe I might have done so. After all, all parents want their children to do well. I tried a similar case where the father lied to get his child into a program (he was very poor) and it was brought out on cross. The jury did not punish him in their verdict and most of the jury agreed that the father was acting in the best interests of his child even though he lied on the application.
ReplyDelete11:34—you would falsify records to get your kids into elite schools? Are you a member of the Bar?
ReplyDeleteAnd do you actually think your children do "well" when they know they've been admitted into a school based on fraud?
I'm not terribly familiar with the criminal law surrounding bribery, but the attorneys should be ready to rebut the question whether common practice is enough to take an act outside the scope of bribery. If the answer is yes, then we're essentially defining a crime based on culture.
ReplyDeleteWould the same principle apply to other areas of the law? Ask all the black and brown people who have been arrested and convicted of marijuana possession offenses if that theory worked.But then again the rules are different for them.
ReplyDelete2:15. Yes, I am. and a donation to a university to all the time and it is not illegal. Admissions officers take a lot of items into consideration, including alumni of the parents. There are many ways to skin a cat, as the saying goes. I suggest you learn some. I believe the appellate court will reverse the conviction.
ReplyDelete