Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.
•••
Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson summarized the surreal allegation of an attempted bribe to a juror on the federal Feeding Our Future trial by telling U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel that "this is completely beyond the pale. This is outrageous behavior. This is stuff that happens in mob movies."
Thompson's indignation is shared by all law-abiding Minnesotans, who, just when they thought they couldn't be shocked any more by the alleged misuse of up to $250 million in federal funds, were told of a white gift bag stuffed with about $120,000 in cash offered to "Juror #52," with the promise of another "present" if she would vote to acquit the seven defendants currently on trial.
"Juror #52″ was not home when a woman drove up to offer the cash at the juror's home, so the bag was handed to a relative of the juror. Upon returning home, the juror immediately called authorities to report the attempted bribe from a woman who had referred to the juror by her first name. "The juror remains at risk for retaliation," said Brasel, who was right to subsequently dismiss the juror, question remaining jurors before sequestering them, and detain the seven defendants and confiscate their phones.
Those seven are among 70 charged in an encompassing case regarding alleged U.S. Department of Agriculture programs meant to reimburse meals for low-income children after school and during the summer in various programs. Eighteen have already pleaded guilty. In the trial of these seven defendants, prosecutors have shown 1,300 exhibits and have called more than 30 witnesses to the stand in making their case in what's been characterized as among the largest pandemic frauds in the country. Conversely, six of the seven defense attorneys rested their case last week without calling any witnesses. One did take the stand. All deny the charges. The case went to the jury on Monday.
On Tuesday, another juror was replaced after she came forward to report that she had heard about the alleged bribery attempt.
The turmoil jeopardizes legal proceedings. "It could be harder to pick a jury for future prosecutions and there could also be new criminal charges, potentially, if they find out who was involved in all this tampering," Rachel Moran, an associate professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, told an editorial writer. "But in terms of this actual trial that's so close to conclusion, I don't think it's likely to disrupt it."
Just as federal authorities moved aggressively on investigating the alleged scheme, the FBI and other federal entities should follow every lead to determine who allegedly offered the bribe, who instigated them to do it and what if any pre-existing ties there were to the current case. Those found guilty in any and every aspect of this case must face the consequences of their actions. Because the alleged briber and those who are convicted in the broader, brazen, even breathtaking fraud stole something beyond the public's money: the public's trust.
This case has "certainly given fodder to people who are already skeptical of the way the government was distributing pandemic money," said Moran.
And yet there are still real food-insecurity needs that must be met. But convincing citizens, and thus lawmakers, to meet those needs will be that much harder due to these alleged crimes.
"This can't be allowed," said Thompson, the assistant U.S. attorney, speaking of the attempted bribery. "This strikes at the integrity of our system."
The legal system, to be sure. But also our fundamental system of governance, reeling from an alleged fraud that not only plays like a mob movie, but a horror film.
