Printer-Friendly
Email this Story
Post a Comment (0)
Tate's defense moves closer to trial
Mark Tate nervously twiddled his thumbs and stared at his shoes, while waiting to enter Loudoun County Criminal Court in Leesburg June 25. Nearby, his mother and father chatted with Tate's attorney, Edward MacMahon, about the lawyer's upcoming vacation plans.Tate, a Purcellville resident and Middleburg businessman, faces nine felony charges, including two counts of election fraud and nine counts of perjury.
He was indicted May 22, 2007, for not disclosing all campaign donations during his 2003 and 2007 campaigns. Tate recently lost the Republican primary for the 27th District state Senate seat to Jill Holtzman Vogel.
Despite his appearance Monday in the second-floor courtroom, though, his lawyer was the one under scrutiny by the commonwealth's attorney.
In a 40-minute hearing presided over by Judge Charles H. Duff, King George County Commonwealth's Attorney Matt Britton and MacMahon argued whether MacMahon would play a role other than Tate's attorney in the impending trail.
Britton, replaced Loudoun Commonwealth's Attorney Jim Plowman, who voluntarily recused himself to avoid the appearance of political favoritism. Plowman is listed on Vogel's Web site as an endorser. Since then, Britton has tried to have MacMahon removed as Tate's defense attorney, saying MacMahon could also be called on as a witness. "Mr. MacMahon has a material conflict," Britton said. Calling it an"obvious" and "evident" conflict of interest, he filed a motion to disqualify MacMahon as Tate's defense attorney because MacMahon donated as much as $6,000 to Mark Tate's state Senate campaign in the 2003 and 2007 Republican primaries.
The State Board of Elections records show that Tate's records disclosed three checks written by MacMahon: two for $500 each and one for $5,000, written on Dec.31, 2002.
MacMahon said he gave a written statement to the prosecution saying he did write the two checks for $500 each, but there is no check for $5,000.
Britton said it's this discrepancy in Tate's record keeping that caused Tate to be brought before the court. And while MacMahon serves as Tate's defense attorney, he retains attorney-client privilege, which means he cannot be called on to testify.
MacMahon argued the reason for the trial is not the amount of money he donated to the campaign, but rather the preparation of the campaign's financial reports.
"Mr. Tate has a constitutional right to select his attorney," MacMahon said. "There is absolutely nothing that I could testify to in this case."
He added that "nobody needs to come forward" because bank records would show the transactions between donors and the Tate campaign.
Britton argued that MacMahon could have a separate bank account for this larger donation, and the state couldn't subpoena records from every bank.
MacMahon said mistakes in campaign finance reports are commonplace. What are we going to do, he asked, look into every candidate's election records?
According to the Virginia State Board of Elections Web site, the board is required to review the campaign finances of every candidate running for a state office.
In the end, Duff said Britton didn't have enough evidence to show whether MacMahon could be a witness for either the prosecution or the defendant, and denied the motion to remove MacMahon as Tate's attorney.
Britton warned Duff, "It all stacks up as a recipe for disaster on appeal."
A trial date may be set at a hearing July 10 at 4 p.m.
Contact the reporter at hhobbs@timespapers.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.