Who Is on Trial, Again?

RALEIGH – North Carolina voters following the Kevin Geddings trial can be forgiven for wondering just who is on trial. While federal prosecutors are currently in court trying to convict Geddings of several criminal counts of fraud, related to his work for the lottery firm Scientific Games and his brief tenure on North Carolina’s lottery commission, much of the evidence being presented has the effect of calling into question the veracity of House Speaker Jim Black.

This is hardly a novel observation. Kevin Geddings himself, upon exiting the courtroom on the afternoon of the starting date, reportedly remarked, “I hope you enjoyed the first day of the Jim Black trial.” At least the defendant and his defense team have a clear understanding of what is going on here.

According to one possible version of the prosecution’s case, Jim Black should be counted among the victims of Geddings’ crime – which is, again according to the prosecution, failing to report on his state disclosure form that he was a paid consultant to Scientific Games, and otherwise conspiring to keep this knowledge from officials and the public so as to “deprive” the state of his “honest services.” Black had picked Geddings for a slot on the lottery commission after his initial idea for the position, Charlotte attorney Bob Cordle, proved problematic. Cordle, a Black ally, was already serving on the state board of elections, and apparently Gov. Mike Easley sent the word that he wanted Cordle to stay there.

Black has said in the past that while he knew Geddings had a background in state lotteries, including a key role in the creation of the South Carolina Lottery some years ago, he did not know of Geddings’ business relationship with Scientific Games. If he had known it, Black said, he would never have made the nomination. The speaker was the first to be defrauded by Geddings, in other words, and only after that was the state as a whole made victim.

Prosecutors aren’t selling that version of the story, however. They argue that the Geddings nomination was made just a day after Black had a meeting with Alan Middleton, a Scientific Games executive, and Meredith Norris, Black’s close political aide and an (unregistered) lobbyist for the company. The intimation is that Black chose Geddings in least in part due to the urging of Middleton and Norris. If Black is called to testify under oath, sticks to his story, and is then contradicted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the trial of Kevin Geddings could truly become the initial stages of at least a perjury trial of the speaker. More generally, the Geddings matter is bringing to light other unflattering information about how North Carolina’s lottery came to be, information that reflects more on Black than on Geddings.

There are many unresolved issues at this point – after all, Geddings does have a defense here, that he truthfully filled out the questions on disclosure form as he understood them and had neither the intention nor the capacity to keep his prior business ties to Scientific Games a secret. But I want to call attention to two unanswered sets of questions at this point in the process.

First, why is the federal government throwing such a heavy book at Geddings for what appears, at least at first glance, to be allegations of a relatively minor crime? If convicted of all eight federal counts, his maximum sentence could be 160 years in prison and $4 million in fines? Was a reasonable plea offered? Why didn’t Geddings take it?

Second, even if Jim Black is the real target of this proceeding, what might be the ramifications? Both Democratic and Republican insiders have considered the issue to be potentially toxic to Democratic candidates, but recent polls and analyses suggest that not enough voters are following the issue closely, and connecting Black’s foibles with his party, to make much of a difference in November.

I can only hazard some guesses on these queries. Regarding Geddings, my guess that he believes he is innocent of the crime, and refused to budge even when offered a deal (though perhaps he simply didn’t have enough information useful to the prosecution to be worth dealing generously with). Regarding Black, I think that any pollster who can accurately predict the likely voter pool for the wacky 2006 election cycle deserves a Nobel Prize in precognition. Broad respondent samples may register little interest, but my guess is that a substantial share of truly likely North Carolina voters is aware of the Jim Black scandal and will take it into consideration, particularly if exposed to GOP campaign messages in late October linking their lawmakers to him.

But, hey, my prognosticatory instincts aren’t on trial here. Geddings – I mean, Black – is.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.