While the jury is deliberating, I will give my two-cents. First off I had the opportunity to listen to a bulk of the trial.
Daniel Willard, 31, is accused of violating a law requiring political communications to disclose the person or organization paying for them. He’s also accused of violating another law requiring political communications to contain an address or website address for the person or organization paying for them.
The four charges are all Class 1 misdemeanors, punishable by a maximum of one year in jail or a $2,000 fine.
While I detest both attorneys involved, I felt Willard’s attorney, Shawn Tornow had a better showing. He based his whole defense on Willard being more part of a ‘advocacy’ group instead of a PAC, comparing it to MADD (Mothers against drunk driving). I thought Tornow’s defense was legitimate, and I feel the jury will find Willard not guilty.
I felt the prosecution (Joel Arends) was sloppy at times, and Gant’s testimony was filled full of ‘I don’t knows’ and ‘I don’t have the document in front of me.’ At times it felt like Gant was mocking Tornow and Willard from the stand and had this attitude that he was going to do anything in his power to not answer any questions, and he did a pretty good job of it, which I only think helped the defense.
I feel Willard is innocent because he is simply a private citizen voicing his opinion about certain legislators, perfectly within his free speech rights or as a head of an advocacy group. I do take offense though with the legislators who may have been involved, like Stace Nelson. He should have stayed out of it.
I guess we will see what happens when the gavel drops.
I had the same impression of Gant. I don’t like Gant anyhow, but I found it odd “on the stand” behavior for someone who is supposed to be a seasoned politician.
Guess the jury didn’t score the trial on style points or feelings, but on the applicable law.
Did you listen to anything besides the defense witness? Because you seem to be speaking from ignorance.
Last two days killed Willard, and Arends is a private atty, NOT the prosecutor.
Joel Arends was not the prosecution attorney, that was Brent Kempema. He is a good guy and I doubt you even know him, let alone detest him. Your feeling on Joel Arends is up to you, he did represent Leaderman and Powers but only regarding their supoenas.
Thanks for clarifying about Arends, because I was confused about the attorneys, because of the snippets I was hearing on the audio, not to mention to poor reporting on the issue. Still don’t really know what he was formally charged with.
As for Willard, as a friend said to me tonight, “The only thing he is guilty of is being an idiot.” Which I agree. I looked at this case, black and white, and the fact that the Governor and AG Jackboots were on a witch hunt. This wasn’t about Willard, this was about Joe Smoe telling his friends at the coffee shot that politician X was a sack of shit, that is all Willard was doing, and well within his rights. Where he screwed up was taking money and advice from other squirrelly Republicans like himself. If Willard would have acted alone, clear case. His goofing around is what got him in trouble, and Tornow as you lawyer? Why not hire a Cotton candy vendor to fix your lawnmower. I also take issue with the podunk jury. “Well, gosh darner, he was buying secret phones at that dare WM, and sayin’ bad tings about our precious Russ Olson. Guilty! Hang Em’ High!” Should Willard get a punishment? Sure. But really? Isn’t the only punishment for blatant stupidity public embarrassment?
Oh and there is this;
“Assistant Attorney General Brent Kempema had asked for some jail time as a deterrent to others who might skirt election law. But he noted Willard will have to pay the costs of prosecuting the case in addition to the fines.”
Jail time? You mean like the couple of days they gave to Janks for killing a man? Make no mistake, they wanted to make an example out of Willard.
Only in South Dakota, would republicans attack republicans for not being republican enough.
Didn’t the law used to prosecute Willard get repealed in the last legislative session? It was a ‘crime’ last year but when it showed how inconvenient it could be in the future, it is repealed. One last prosecution to prove a point, don’t mess with GOP power circles.
Willard was convicted. He ended up with four misdemeanor election law violations.
DL – with your track record on predicting the results of a trial/lawsuit… you might just want to stand back and watch next time. Might also want to familiarize yourself with the acronym “IANAL”.
Craig – I wasn’t trying to win some contest. If I was on the jury I would have found him innocent.
Let this be a lesson to all republican push pollers: From now on when you buy your trac-fones at Walmart, pay with CASH. Morans.
DL – FYI – there is no such thing as finding someone “innocent”. The correct term is “not guilty” and that is merely a determination in regard to the strength of the prosecution’s case – not the lack of culpability of the accused.
For Ex: is Zimmerman “innocent” of the death of T Martin? (I.E., he “didn’t have anything to do with it”)?
Re: “other squirrelly Republicans like himself” – you mean a whole “PAC” of them?
Re: the “goofus jury” – gee whiz DL – here I thought you wuz fer the “everyman” style of making important decisions. Hmmm, maybe you should start a petition drive to have the jury’s decision overthrown.
You have to remember, Madison’s golden boy, Russ Olson was the target of these calls. This was purely political.
My conclusion to this trial is that anyone who really wants “to come to the aid of their Party,” or thinks they are “aiding” their Party, needs to invest in a good hoodie, acquire some cash (no credit cards), and access to an apolitical friends computer (preferably in an other state)… oh yeah, when you go to visit your friend in an other state, buy the gas with cash too!
I am just saying…..