With less than three weeks until the scheduled federal criminal trial of former JEA executives Aaron Zahn and Ryan Wannemacher, prosecutors and defense attorneys were back in a Jacksonville courtroom Wednesday, discussing issues around witnesses, evidence, and jury selection.
Zahn, a former CEO of the utility, and Wannemacher, his former chief financial officer, were indicted in March 2022 in connection with a proposed bonus plan that would have paid out millions of dollars to employees if the city-owned utility were sold. They were charged with conspiracy and wire fraud. Both have pleaded not guilty.
The trial, which has been delayed several times previously, is currently slated to begin February 5. In late November, defense attorneys asked a judge to delay the trial by 60 days. As the judge has not yet ruled on that request, an attorney for Zahn brought up the question of a delay once again, saying they will take any time the court is willing to grant – floating the idea of a 30-day delay. An attorney for Wannemacher later asked for a 2- to 3-week delay. Neither request was immediately ruled on during the hearing.
Since the indictment, most of the pre-trial court proceedings have been tied to statements Zahn and Wannemacher made that to city attorneys in early 2020, as the city and JEA tried to determine whether Zahn could be fired with cause. Those statements were subject to “Garrity rights,” which are protections given to public employees who are compelled to testify so that the information can’t be used against them in a criminal proceeding.
Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Brian J. Davis issued an order, adopting the reports and recommendations of the federal magistrate judge who conducted an eight-day hearing in May 2023, known as a “Kastigar” hearing, where prosecutors had to prove that their case rests solely on evidence other than the protected statements and anything derived from them. The judges found that the prosecution had shown an independent basis for the facts alleged in the indictment.
In recent weeks, defense attorneys have raised questions about witnesses who were not called at the Kastigar hearing, and whether they could be called at trial, since there had not yet been an examination of whether the protected statements impacted their testimony in any way. During Wednesday’s hearing, the judge and attorneys discussed several ways in which that could happen, potentially during a hearing in the weeks before the case, or during the trial, but while the jury was not present. The judge did not immediately rule on how the questions over witnesses will be settled.
Another ruling from Davis on Tuesday ordered that two separate juries be chosen for the trial, one for each defendant. This ruling followed motions from Zahn and Wannemacher, asking that their trials be separated, so that they could use the other defendant’s protected statement during their own defense. If the statements were used during a traditional joint trial, a defendant’s right against self-incrimination could be violated. In his order, Davis wrote that seating two juries would preserve the constitutional rights of each defendant.
Wednesday’s hearing addressed some of the jury selection process. Defense attorneys had made requests for a number of special procedures, including a larger jury pool and an expanded juror questionnaire. Davis said in court that he was not inclined to have an enlarged jury pool, but was considering incorporating some of their other requested procedures into the jury selection process. The judge said he will likely conduct the jury selections separately, with one defendant’s jury being selected one day, and the other jury chosen the following day.
The hearing also included discussion of other issues related to evidence and testimony, where the judge has not yet issued final rulings.
Once the trial begins, it is expected to last about four weeks.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.