Printer-Friendly
Email this Story
Post a Comment (0)
Tate trial date set for November
Even though the defense attorney and prosecutor in the Mark Tate case continued to debate July 20 during the hour-long hearing whether a trial was necessary, Loudoun County Circuit Court Judge Burke F. McCahill said it was time to move forward and set a trial date.
Mark Tate, who lost the Republican nomination for the state Senate's 27th District seat in June, is scheduled to be tried by jury for 11 felony charges -- including two counts of election fraud – Nov. 26 at 9 a.m in Leesburg. The trial will likely last four days.
Tate, a Middleburg restaurateur and Purcellville resident, also faces nine counts of perjury. He was indicted May 22 for allegedly not disclosing all of his campaign donations during his run for the nomination. He lost to Jill Holtzman Vogel. That Senate seat is currently held by retiring Sen. Russell Potts (R-western Loudoun).
Several motions -- including two to dismiss the charges against Tate -- were brought forward at Friday's hearing in the County Courthouse in Leesburg.
The first motion was based on the broadness of the indictments against Tate.
"I don't know who prepared these indictments," said defense attorney Edward MacMahon. "You cannot look at these indictments and tell what he's been charged with."
But Commonwealth's Attorney Matt Britton argued that the ambiguity allowed for the indictments to cover the vast amount of evidence against Tate, which includes election fraud charges that extend back to his 2003 campaign for the Republican nomination for state Senate against Potts.
"Short-form indictments are preferred and recommended by the state Supreme Court," Britton said. He said the reason the indictments did not outline a witness list and specific election donation misfiling was because of the large amount of documents to be used against Tate.
Because of this, Britton said, the case would be "document intensive not witness intensive."
Judge McCahill compromised with the attorneys on this motion, saying Britton had included enough information in the indictments to go to trial, but Tate's defense should know what evidence the commonwealth would be bringing against Tate.
Britton has until Aug. 13 to send copies of his evidence to MacMahon.
The second motion filed by Tate's attorney to dismiss the charges pointed to the conduct of Loudoun's Commonwealth's Attorney Jim Plowman, whose pre-trial investigation of Tate was tainted by his political alliances to Tate's opponent, Vogel, said MacMahon.
Plowman recused himself from the case before the court proceedings began.
But MacMahon said his recusal wasn't early enough for Plowman not to sway the grand jury's decision to move forward with indictments against Tate.
"You can't get the political stench out of this case," MacMahon said. He said the Vogel campaign and Tate's other opponents had worked to "gin up" or contrive a case against his client.
But the judge, said MacMahon, didn't have enough evidence of a possible conspiracy between Plowman and the Vogel campaign.
Other motions presented at the hearing included one by MacMahon to look into the e-mail records of those who had brought concerns about Tate's campaign finances to Plowman. MacMahon said those e-mails could show a link between Plowman and possible Vogel conspirators.
But Judge McCahill said there wasn't enough evidence to warrant looking into personal e-mails.
Britton had a motion of his own for the courts to reconsider Judge Charles H. Duff's decision to allow MacMahon to serve as Tate's defense attorney. During a hearing on June 25, Britton said MacMahon could serve as a witness because he had made donations in December 2002 to Tate's campaign. But Duff said Britton didn't have enough proof that MacMahon's comments on the stand would benefit the commonwealth's case against Tate.
Judge McCahill said the motion to reconsider should be presented to Judge Duff and would not be considered at the hearing.
With those motions quashed, there was no reason not to continue to trial.
Contact the reporter at hhobbs@timespapers.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.