Federal Jury Is Deciding Liability In Buchanan County, Va., Bribery Case

By Daniel Gilbert
Reporter / Bristol Herald Courier
Published: June 6, 2008

ABINGDON, Va. – Whether Buchanan County can extract money in damages from officials and contractors convicted of corruption charges is in the hands of a federal jury.
Attorneys on Thursday wrapped up closing arguments in the civil round of the so-called “Coon Dog” case, which hinges on two major points – whether the former county officials and the contractors who bribed them are liable for money the county overspent in relief work from a 2002 flood; and whether the collusion resulted in a material injury to the county.
Jurors deliberated for 90 minutes Thursday before adjourning shortly before 6 p.m. They will reconvene this morning.
An attorney for the county described a self-perpetuating arrangement in which contractors bribed Buchanan County supervisors, who rewarded them with lucrative contracts – that ultimately left taxpayers with a tab they never knew they were paying. 
Former Board of Supervisors Chairman Ray Blankenship accepted the bribes in exchange for helping the contractors “getting the contracts made and the bills paid,” Steven Minor, representing Buchanan County, said in his closing argument.
“The only way he knew the bills could be paid was at a detriment to the county,” he argued. “The people of Buchanan didn’t get the bribes or the contracts, but they were left with the cost of the criminal acts of the defendants.”
But Tim McAfee, representing one of the contractors convicted of bribing Buchanan County officials, disputed the legal basis for the county’s suit.
The county could not be entitled to any compensatory damages, McAfee contended, because it was the county’s governing body that authorized the expenditures.
Moreover, McAfee said, the work performed by the contractors was of good quality, and at a substantial discount from what the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers originally had charged.
“There was no property damaged,” McAfee said. “The property has been increased in value.”
Regardless of the bribes, he said, taxpayers got a “reasonable value” for the services performed.
“It just means [contractors] weren’t the smartest bribers out there,” McAfee said.
The two attorneys sparred over why the Federal Emergency Management Agency had decided to reduce the amount of funding it had authorized for relief efforts – a crucial pillar of the plaintiff’s case.
A FEMA report introduced as evidence cited an “ongoing federal investigation” into bid-rigging as the agency’s rationale for scaling back the amount it had authorized by $439,000.
The investigation, argued Minor, citing witness testimony, could only refer to the criminal case against the defendants who were charged and convicted.
McAfee pointed out that the criminal case defendants already had been indicted by the date of the report, May 5, 2005, leaving it unclear whether the report referred to a separate, subsequent investigation. No one from FEMA, he said, was called to testify why the funding was drawn down.
Two facts are undisputed by both parties: that the contractors performed quality work, and the county spent beyond its means in the flood-relief work. But a point of contention lies somewhere in between.
With an inelastic budget, Buchanan County had to draw money from other committed projects – what Minor argues constitutes an injury in the form of $2.2 million.
The jury first will determine whether the defendants are liable for damages. If so, they will move on to assess damages.

| (276) 645-2558