Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Jury to start SOCom bribery case review

Jurors must determine if a key government witness is telling the truth after changing his story.

By PAUL DE LA GARZA
Published May 12, 2006

TAMPA - A federal bribery case went to the jury Thursday after the defense decided not to call witnesses.

Attorney Pat Doherty, who represents retired Army Col. Tom Spellissy, told reporters the government's star witness helped the defense by testifying that his client is innocent.

"We feel the case is in the best possible posture," Doherty said.

Spellissy, a defense consultant, is charged with paying $4,500 in bribes to former SOCom official William Burke to get preferential treatment for his clients in the defense industry.

Burke pleaded guilty last fall and was sentenced to probation. He agreed to cooperate with the government in the prosecution of Spellissy.

But on the witness stand, Burke testified he and Spellissy did nothing illegal.

Burke said he worked for Spellissy's company part time, while he also worked as a private contractor at SOCom for Sentel Corp.

"I didn't believe it was a bribe," he said of their arrangement.

Burke said he pleaded guilty to spare his family the embarrassment and cost of a lengthy trial. He said investigators pressured him into pleading guilty.

In an interview before court Thursday, federal prosecutor Robert O'Neill said he would have to review the transcript to determine whether Burke committed perjury.

He said he also would have to decide whether to notify the judge who accepted Burke's plea and the judge who sentenced him.

During testimony O'Neill got Burke to admit that as recently as January he told investigators he had accepted a bribe from Spellissy.

Burke's superiors at SOCom testified he kept his working relationship with Spellissy secret. But supervisor James Pettigrew said he saw no evidence Burke gave Spellissy's clients favorable treatment.

O'Neill rested the government's case in the afternoon, after three days' of testimony.

In closing arguments, O'Neill instructed jurors to ignore Burke's testimony and to focus on e-mails and bank records he said spelled out the bribery scam.

"Nobody knew about this secret agreement between Mr. Spellissy and Mr. Burke," O'Neill said. "Why was it secret? Because it was illegal."

Doherty and co-counsel Jeff Brown argued that Spellissy's and Burke's working arrangement was legal. They noted Spellissy paid Burke with company checks and that he had Burke file the appropriate income tax forms with the government. Both their companies were registered with the state.

Pointing to Spellissy's 29-year military career, Brown said: "It's foolish to think he's going to risk everything he did in his life for $4,500. It's insulting because you know it never happened."

Jurors got the case Thursday night but will not begin deliberations until today.

[Last modified May 12, 2006, 11:18:37]