.

Lawyers Lay Out Their Cases in Leopold Trial

The defense for Anne Arundel's county executive says the accusations while "tawdry" do not rise to a level of criminal behavior.

The prosecution and defense laid out their cases in opening statements for the trial of Anne Arundel County Executive John Leopold on Friday morning.

Leopold faces a five-count indictment, which includes four counts of misconduct in office and one count of fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary.

Maryland State Prosecutor Emmet Davitt said his case would "in a nutshell" show that the two-term county executive "willfully abused and misused" the powers given to him under the Anne Arundel County Charter.

He highlighted the prosecution's first witness, Patricia Medlin, who served as Leopold's scheduling secretary during his two terms in office.

"She will describe an atmosphere of intimidation and fear," Davitt said. "Fear of incurring Mr. Leopold’s wrath and fear of losing her job."

Medlin will describe those fears to Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Dennis Sweeney only. Leopold waived his right to a jury trial on Thursday.

Davitt also focused on some of the indictments' more salacious details, including Leopold tasking his security force made up of Anne Arundel County police officers with changing "a urine bag attached to his ankle not once, not twice but day in and day out, week after week and month after month."

And that on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons, his security detail would often "drive [Leopold] out to lunch to various locations but primarily to a bowling alley parking lot where the defendant would get into a car with this county employee and engage in sexual activity while the officers were directed to wait on the other side of the parking lot."

Davitt also touched on the creation of files allegedly compiled by Leopold's security detail against his political enemies "under the direction of the county executive."

The accusations over the Pasadena Republican's alleged "enemies list" has led to a separate lawsuit filed in December 2012 by the American Civil Liberties Union to release the documents on 11 people who believe files were compiled against them.

"It’s criminal misconduct because it’s in violation of his duties as a sworn county executive," Davitt said. "I believe at the end of this trial the evidence will show he violated the public trust by committing this misconduct in office."

In contrast, defense Attorney Bruce Marcus spent approximately 40 minutes focusing on Leopold the man in an opening statement that also included a photo slide show.

Marcus laid out his case that "however tawdry" or "salacious" the state's accusations against Leopold are, they "do not rise to the level of criminal behavior."

"They may viewed in the light of poor judgment, lack of social grace, but they do not rise to the level of criminal behavior," Marcus said.

He said that officers assigned as a security detail for a president, governor or any elected official often have different responsibilities than regular police officers.

"These officers are required to be involved in some of the most intimate details in the life of the protectee," Marcus said. "They have one goal and that is the safe passage and safety of the protectee."

He said these duties might include protecting the person during social visits, vacations and dropping children off at school.

"That standard in trying to determine what is the permissible scope of what is an executive protection person will be spelled out," Marcus said. "It can’t be left to the whim or caprice of one side of the courtroom."

He also spent time discussing the details of Leopold's two back surgeries and the medical complications that arose as a result, including the requirement that Leopold use a catheter due to a neurogenic bladder.

"There is no other way to explain this, and I apologize for the fact that we are dealing with these issues," Marcus said.

He said that during the time in which the prosecution alleges Leopold inappropriately asked officers and staff to change his catheter bag, the county executive was in "crippling and excruciating" pain.

Marcus said that the alleged fraud against Leopold for permitting overtime pay for his security detail fails to meet the burden of proof because "there is one signature that does not appear and that is John Leopold."

If convicted on the fraud charge, Leopold could face a five-year jail sentence.

The prosecution will start calling witnesses on Friday.

billybob January 18, 2013 at 06:20 PM
Knuckle dragging cretin! Jail
G-Man January 18, 2013 at 06:31 PM
You know if he gets off on all charges (I do mean this in a G rated fashion) WE as tax payers pay his lawyer fees.
Raejean Imler French January 18, 2013 at 07:16 PM
He has cost the County taxpayers by allowing the courts to convene and inconvenience 300 people for a jury pool he decided at the last minute not to use. So it was all probably just a delay tactic, but again, we're paying for his follies.
Karen Delimater January 18, 2013 at 10:28 PM
Please take action to oppose Anne Arundel County Bill 93-12, by urging the County Councilman to vote against this bill by phoning them at emails to them at Annapolis Office: (410) 222-1401 and sending emails to them at the following addresses. District 1 Peter.Smith@aacounty.org District 2 john.grasso@aacounty.org District 3 dfink@aacounty.org District 4 james.benoit@aacounty.org District 5 dladd@aacounty.org District 6 ctrumbauer@aacounty.org District 7 jerry.walker@aacounty.org
Karen Delimater January 18, 2013 at 10:29 PM
Bill 93-12 (See this page http://www.aacounty.org/CountyCouncil/Resources/2012/93-12.pdf) is egregious because this 54-page bill thoroughly rejects Constitutional principles of the right to property for citizens in violation of the U.S. Bill of Rights Fifth Amendment. Additionally, this bill also deprives citizens of Natural, God-given Rights in the Maryland Constitution’s Declaration of Rights Articles - 19, 20, 24, and 25. Specifically the bill states the following: 3-1-207(b)(2)(i) “...the County critical area program and related ordinances will deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in similar areas, as permitted in accordance with the provisions of the critical area program, within the critical area;” 3-1-207(b)(2)(ii) “the County's bog protection program will deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in similar areas within the bog protection area of the County” These statements on page 4 lines 20 and 24 are blatantly unconstitutional. Other edicts in the bill include the pre-eminence of plant, animal and wildlife protections over rights of the land-owner (pages 5, 28, 30, 32, 34, and 36).
Karen Delimater January 18, 2013 at 10:30 PM
Additionally, harsh penalties and fines are assessed up to $10,000.00 per infraction in violation of Article 25, Maryland Declaration of Rights. The penalties and fines are determined by unelected government bureaucrats and political appointees denying Due Process to the citizens. The duty of the County Councilman as elected officials is to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property of the residents of Anne Arundel County. We hope that you will join us 6:30 pm Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 44 Calvert Street, Annapolis, MD 21401 and oppose Bill 93-12 and any proposed amendments through your rightful exercise of free speech and redress of grievances. Thank you for your support. Please call the County Executive Office’s at (410) 222-1821 and urge them to withdraw Bill 93-12. Also call Larry Tom, Office of Planning and Zoning at (410) 222-7450 and send an email him at PZTOM264@aacounty.org opposing Bill 93-12.
patricia January 19, 2013 at 12:56 PM
No, I'm certain I saw an article in the Gazette, that stated, if he loses, he will pay for his own defense. Maybe someone with the facts can comment on this, instead of the tag team.
patricia January 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Dear fellow Democrats, Liberal progressives are NOT democrats. They do not represent the democrat party, they are trying to convince you that you are outnumbered. Don't fall for it.
Steve January 19, 2013 at 01:59 PM
Creepy. Do they still let all the cops that lied for him testify in court?
Raejean Imler French January 19, 2013 at 05:07 PM
Patricia: He is paying for his own attorneys for the criminal trial. The civil lawsuit that was moved to federal court jurisdiction (involving Karla Hamner and others) is the one for which he has pledged to reimburse the County for the cost of his separate defense, with some rather extensive restrictions that make the pledge almost meaningless. The County's Office of Law decided there was a conflict and urged him to get his own lawyers. Last reported, some $55,000. in invoices had been presented to the County for his representation as a named individual. This is over and above the cost to the County of representing itself as the principal defendant, since it's a federal employment discrimination issue. That trial won't proceed until this one is concluded. Then there is the pending ACLU lawsuit against him, in which I presume he is obliged to defend himself individually, but I honestly don't know who or what court will ultimately have jurisdiction.
patricia January 19, 2013 at 09:20 PM
If he loses he should pay the costs, if he wins, the people who brought the cases against him should then be forced to pay the costs.
Mary Johnson January 27, 2013 at 07:15 PM
This is old news now, and I wonder if anyone saw the January 24 Washington Post editorial regarding Leopold's day in court?
Raejean Imler French January 27, 2013 at 08:30 PM
If you're referring to "Mr. Leopold Goes to Court" on Jan, 23, no, but thank you for pointing us in that direction. Very good.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something