by Max Brantley
Maggio also argues that the Court accepted his plea without an adequate factual basis to show a “quid pro quo arrangement,” referring to the explicit agreement to remit a verdict in exchange for a campaign contribution. As indicated above, the issue on appeal must present “a close question” that could go either way – not simply that “reasonable judges could differ.” This Court has previously outlined Maggio’s factual admissions regarding the explicit agreement to remit a verdict in exchange for a campaign contribution. In summary, the stipulated facts establish that Individual B [believed to be Gilbert Baker] communicated to Maggio that Individual A [believed to be nursing home owner Michael Morton] would provide Maggio with campaign donations in exchange for a remittitur of the verdict, and that Maggio remitted the verdict accordingly. There is no close question about whether these facts constitute a quid pro quo sufficient for the Court to conclude that Maggio violated § 666.In conclusion, the government argued:
The statutory language of the Bail Reform Act favors detention for defendants who have been convicted and sentenced. The Eighth Circuit has made very clear that release pending appeal is a very limited exception to detention. Because Maggio cannot demonstrate a “substantial question of law or fact” necessary to satisfy § 3143(b)(1)(B), the Court need not consider whether Maggio meets the criteria of danger to the community and flight risk. Maggio has not met his burden of establishing that he is entitled to release pending appeal, and he should proceed directly to jail on Monday, May 23, 2016.