The lead prosecutor in the corruption case against state Agriculture and Forestry Commissioner Bob Odom on Monday urged appellate court judges to restore the seven charges she claims were wrongfully dismissed by the presiding judge earlier this year.

 

Prosecutor Sandra Ribes argued in a legal brief filed Monday that state District Judge Don Johnson should not have dismissed three money laundering and filing false public records counts. Ribes also claimed it was legally impossible for Johnson to dismiss the four remaining counts because prosecutors had already lodged an appeal on Johnson’s ruling on the money laundering and public records counts.

 

That appeal took the case out of Johnson’s hands and put it with the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal, Ribes argued in the brief.

 

Defense attorney Mary Olive Pierson countered in a defense motion with the 1st Circuit that it was prosecutors who left Johnson with no choice but to dismiss the four remaining counts. Pierson said prosecutors told Johnson they would not continue because of the questions over jurisdiction.

 

“The judge called the case to trial and prosecutors weren’t ready to go forward,” Pierson said Monday.

 

Pierson said the decision by Johnson to dismiss the charges on Feb. 26 is the same as an acquittal.

 

“You cannot appeal an acquittal,” she said.

 

The trip to the 1st Circuit is the latest in a case that began in the fall of 2002 with a 21-count indictment. Charges were dropped by prosecutors and others have been eliminated by Johnson, resulting in the seven that remained at the start of this year. The seven counts included two counts of bribery and one count each of conspiracy to commit bribery, money laundering, conspiracy to commit money laundering, felony theft and filing false public records.

 

In January, Johnson dismissed the filing false public records count after agreeing with the defense that Odom’s tax returns are not public records and therefore could not have been falsely filed.

 

Ribes argued in the Monday brief that she is not required to prove that Odom’s returns are public records. She said prosecutors must show that a document with false information was filed with a public office or official, and the false information was known at the time it was submitted.

 

On the money laundering counts, Johnson again agreed with a defense argument that Louisiana law only applies to illegal transactions involving cash. The indictment alleges Odom violated the law by laundering checks from a campaign account.

 

Ribes argues that checks can be used to convict someone of money laundering because checks fall into the legal category of “anything of value” in the money laundering statutes.