Opinion
Case No. 8: 00-cr-75-T-30MAP.
August 15, 2001.
U.S. Attorneys: Robert E. O'Neill, [COR LD NTC], Pamela K. Cothran, [COR LD NTC], U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida, Tampa, FL.
Audley Evans, defendant, Arnold D. Levine, [COR LD NTC ret], Levine, Hirsch, Segall Northcutt, P.A., Tampa, FL.
Patrick Watson, defendant, [term 02/26/01], David A. Maney, [term 02/26/01] [COR LD NTC ret], Maney, Damsker, Harris Jones, P.A., Tampa, FL., Ellis R. Faught, Jr., [term 05/11/00] [COR LD NTC ret], Law Offices of Ellis R. Faught, Jr., Brandon, FL.
Hayward Chapman, defendant, James E. Felman, [term 08/28/00] [COR LD NTC ret], Kynes, Markman Felman, P.A., Tampa, FL., Dewey Frank Winkles, [COR LD NTC ret], Swope Law Group, P.A., Tampa, FL.
Elizabeth Evans, Surety, Elizabeth Evans, [NTC] [PRO SE], Temple Terrace, FL.
C C Partners, a Georgia general partnership interested party, Claude Hines Tison, Jr., [COR LD NTC ret], Swope Law Group, P.A., Tampa, FL.
McCoy Federal Credit Union, interested party, Michael J. Gasdick, [COR LD NTC ret], Stanton Gasdick, P.A., Orlando, FL.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT CHAPMAN'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the Motion of Defendant C. Hayward Chapman for Reconsideration of Order on Post-Trial Motions (Dkt. 273).
Upon consideration, the Court hereby vacates the portion of its previous order that contains the incorrect date of December, 1995, for Chapman's posting of the $25,000 certificate of deposit (the "CD") as collateral for Evan's loan. The Court modifies its earlier order to correct the date to December, 1996.
This modification does not, however, alter the Court's decision on the merits of the Court's previous Order denying Defendant Chapman's post trial motions for acquittal. The timing of Chapman's acts still present a crucial distinction between the cases against Defendant Chapman and Defendant Watson. The December, 1996, posting of the $25,000 CD by Chapman still occurred in the midst of one of the Tampa Housing Authority's ("THA") contracts benefitting Bradley and Bradley (the North Blvd. Joint Ventures project) and after Concorde first received profits from its contracts with the Meridian River Development Corporation ("MRDC"). As noted in the Court's previous Order, there was sufficient evidence, including the timing of the payments, for the jury to convict Chapman of four counts of gratuity.
Evans was the executive director of the MRDC.
Chapman's other arguments for reconsideration are merely attempts to reargue findings of fact and matters of proof that are within the province of the jury. There was sufficient evidence before the jury from which it could conclude that Chapman controlled an interest in Bradley and Bradley and Concorde (through his son-in-law and daughter, respectively, and through his own activities), or at the least, that the companies benefitted from Evans' official actions. Moreover, the jury's acquittal of Chapman on the tax charge against him for failure to report income from these companies does not equate to a finding that he did not control either company. Also, such a conclusory allegation fails to reflect the evidence before the jury on the gratuity charges and overlooks the fact that an individual making a bribe or gratuity can be charged with the offense regardless of that individual's official position with a company for which the bribe or gratuity is intended to benefit.
It is so ordered in chambers in Tampa, Florida on August 15, 2001.