There is a massive fraud trial happening in Minnesota, which the Department of Justice alleges is part of an even bigger pandemic-related conspiracy that cost U.S. taxpayers a total of $250 million. But the multimillion case went viral this week thanks to a monumental example of criminal bumbling.
Seven defendants have been on trial since April, accused of stealing more than $40 million in aid money from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That money was supposed to feed children during the pandemic, but instead, the defendants allegedly defrauded the government out of the money. On Friday, five defendants were convicted; some could face decades in prison.
Criminal defendants — particularly white-collar criminal defendants — often think they know how to solve their own problems.
Criminal defendants — particularly white-collar criminal defendants — often think they know how to solve their own problems. They often think they know better than their lawyers how to extricate themselves from criminal prosecution. But a recent bribery attempt may have marked a new low in “self-help.”
Last weekend, a woman dressed in black showed up on the doorstep of one of the jurors, clutching a “white floral gift bag filled with $100, $50 and $20 bills” totaling $120,000 in small bills. The 23-year-old juror was not home but one of her relatives answered the door. The mystery woman left the bag, and said “Tell her there will be another bag for her if she votes to acquit.”
There are several reasons why this might be one of the dumbest attempts at bribery and jury tampering in recent federal criminal history.
For one thing, it’s practically impossible to drive up to someone’s house in 2024 without ending up on a Ring doorbell. Home security cameras now litter the suburban landscape. There’s a good chance the woman’s trip to the juror’s house is on digital film; possibly even an image of her license plate. And the FBI is good at knocking on doors. Agents have probably already knocked on every door in the neighborhood to see whose cameras pointed where and recorded what. Federal agents have apparently already searched the home of at least one of the defendants involved in the trial.
This would-be briber went to the home without even being certain that the juror was home, which all but guaranteed she would have to talk face-to-face with some unknown person, who could identify her. And that’s just the person who answered the door. There might have been other family members home, or someone out watering the lawn next door. This was hardly a back-alley transaction, hidden from view.
It’s also obvious that the juror was not in on any of this — she called the police immediately. It’s amazing that the bag woman didn’t think to at least try to contact the juror first, before she just drove over there with the cash. (The juror was excused from the trial after reporting the bribe to the trial’s judge. Another juror was also replaced after they heard about the bribe.) Of course, I’m not advocating for more effective bribery methods. None of this should have happened at all. No one should make contact with jurors. Ever. But it’s amazing that whoever came up with this idiotic scheme didn’t make some preliminary contact to test the juror’s susceptibility to a bribe. It seems they chose this juror at random—and you generally don’t want to invite randoms into your criminal conspiracy. What about evidence on the money bag itself? It might have touch DNA, which is DNA transferred from a person to an object by contact. This cell-free DNA is considered a reliable source of genetic material. It’s not conclusive and can be controversial. But it also offers law enforcement a place to start. If there’s any trace DNA on the bag or the money, and that DNA is in a law enforcement database, it might at least point authorities in the right direction. It’s amazing that whoever came up with this idiotic scheme didn’t make some preliminary contact to test the juror’s susceptibility to a bribe. According to NBC News, presiding U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel said in a detention order filed Thursday that it is “likely” that at least one defendant was involved in the bribe attempt. So, it’s probably one of the defendants. No surprise there. There are seven defendants. It’s hardly a needle in a haystack. And the fact that the FBI has already searched a defendant’s home suggests the agency has possibly already narrowed it down. Although it’s not clear yet which defendant was the subject of the search, the judge ordered all defendants to surrender their cellphones, and all seven were taken into custody. This will likely not be a very lengthy investigation. Criminals do clumsy things. The master criminals are the ones who don’t get caught. If one of the defendants ends up being involved, no one will be surprised. Five of the defendants in this case have already been found guilty of embezzling money meant to help children. But given this open bribery investigation, more charges could be coming — and soon.
