Girded for a long-awaited trial, prosecutors strode into court Monday morning, 4½ long years after they indicted Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom on charges of conspiracy, theft, bribery and money laundering.
In a matter of hours, they limped right back out, taking the sorry dregs of their case with them.
By the time state Judge Donald Johnson dismissed the remaining six charges against Odom -- down from 21 in the heady days of 2002, when convictions of three former or sitting statewide officials were still fresh -- it was already obvious that a decisive verdict wasn't in the cards.
In fact, the prosecution barely made it to the courthouse at all. The case against Odom had already been thrown out once, because prosecutors didn't bring him to trial promptly enough. The state Supreme Court revived the case last fall, a ruling that was unexpected -- and now seems temporary, though prosecutors vow to appeal.
In truth, some of the charges that were set for trial weren't exactly riveting. Allegedly misappropriated pine tree seedlings, even 49,000 of them valued at over $2,000, seems penny ante compared to, say, $90,000 in bills marked by the FBI and stuffed into a congressman's freezer.
Other counts carried higher stakes, such as a $55,000 Baton Rouge condo that the government says Odom received free from a lobbyist. But Odom's attorneys were ready to offer documentation showing he paid full price.
That kind of evidence might well have disentangled him from the clutches of criminal law, and Odom was quick to claim that the judge's ruling as his "vindication." But whether voters will prove as forbearing as the lower court remains to be seen. Odom is not home free, even if Johnson's favorable ruling is upheld on appeal.
Because whatever their legal merit, the alleged schemes outlined by prosecutors certainly raise questions. Why, for example, did Odom loan $700,000 from his campaign account to the First Baptist Church of Zachary, then have the church pay some interest to another church for his grandchildren's day care? Odom's attorney, Mary Olive Pierson, said "you can't launder money that's not dirty," but since when can interest from a candidate's political piggy bank pay personal expenses?
The behavior outlined in the charges dovetails nicely with Odom's other questionable activities. It was Odom, some years back, who used his department's employees -- people with other duties, including some well-paid professionals -- to build the state a new sugar mill in Lacassine. Odom claimed the process saved the state money, but he refused to quantify the costs or savings, declaring bookkeeping a bureaucratic waste of time.
That echoes an allegation from the original indictment, that Odom used state employees and supplies to help build houses for his children.
These controversies, just two of many over the years, point to an overstaffed, under-regulated, personality-driven department run by a classic political boss. So does Odom's traditional strength delivering rural votes, which has earned him the loyalty -- or maybe the fear -- of officials who look the other way at his antics.
Odom has remained so potent politically that nobody ran against him four years ago, even though he was under indictment at the time. His press hadn't improved, and yet Odom entered this election year with $556,560 in the bank.
That isn't to say he has nothing to fear. Odom already has drawn an opponent in Republican state Rep. Mike Strain, at a time when the GOP has a shot at improving party fortunes. The governor, a Democrat, is on the defensive, and a goodly chunk of Democratic voters -- albeit from the city, not Odom's rural stronghold -- have yet to return to the state since Katrina.
Besides, it just stands to reason that some day voters will get tired of Odom's retro style of populist politics.
It's hard for a prosecutor to put a politician's entire career on trial. It's much easier for an opponent in an election. Odom may have escaped the threat of imprisonment, but it may be too early for him to breathe easy.
. . . . . . .