To the press, and virtually everyone I’ve talked to in the past year, the case against former Del. Phil Hamilton was a slam dunk.
After reading the Daily Press this weekend, I’m not so sure.
Hamilton is charged with bribery and extortion. From the indictment, those are defined as follows:
Bribery “corruptly solicit, demand, accept and agree to accept a thing of value…intending to be influenced and rewarded”
Extortion “knowingly and unlawfully delay and affect and obstruct … commerce and the movement of any article or commodity in commerce”
Here’s the problem. I haven’t seen any evidence that Hamilton demanded anything. He solicited. He accepted. He agreed. But where’s the proof that he demanded?
I also haven’t seen any evidence that he obstructed the funding of the ODU center until he got the job he wanted. In fact, Hamilton has pushed for things like this for years.
“Sacks has elicited testimony that Hamilton had tried earlier to establish teacher training centers in ways that didn’t involve ODU or a job for himself. As a legislator, he headed a commission on educational leadership well before the current controversy ever surfaced. (Daily Press)”
That seems problematic for the prosecution to me. Hamilton was pushing this idea before ever talking about being hired through it.
To be guilty, it looks to this non-lawyer that Hamilton would have to “demand” something and “obstruct” the something if he didn’t get it or until he did.
If that’s true, I don’t think he’s guilty.
OK, lawyers (and I know you read BD), shoot me an anonymous email, or better, post in the comments if I’m off base.
But if what was reported in the last week is the extent of the prosecution’s case, I can’t see how they’ve proven it.
