|
City to refile
campaign charges
Attorney Edward Chun's conviction was
overturned by the state Supreme Court
City prosecutors said they plan to reissue charges against prominent local attorney Edward Chun, whose conviction for making illegal political contributions to former Mayor Jeremy Harris was reversed earlier this year by the state Supreme Court.
In court papers filed last month, Deputy Prosecutor Chris Van Marter said he plans to issue a penal summons complaint in state District Court alleging misdemeanor violations of campaign spending laws.
"The criminal charges will be refiled by way of 'penal summons complaint' ... and resolved by way of the previously agreed plea agreement," Van Marter said.
The Prosecutor's Office is seeking the action after Circuit Judge Steven Alm dismissed Chun's conviction for making excessive contributions to the Harris campaign without prejudice yesterday. The "without prejudice" designation means that prosecutors will be allowed to refile the criminal charges.
In December 2003, Alm sentenced the 73-year-old Chun to 10 days in jail after he pleaded guilty to the charge, but the conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court due to defects in Chun's indictment. The high court also said that Alm abused his discretion by categorically refusing to accept a no-contest plea.
Dale Lee, an attorney for Chun, a founder of Chun Kerr Dodd Beaman & Wong, argued that Chun's case should have been dismissed "with prejudice" in light of the Supreme Court's reversal. Lee said he is in discussion with the Prosecutor's Office on whether it can refile the charges.
A penal summons would allow Chun's case to be assigned to District Court and not Circuit Court.
Alm said the dismissal should be without prejudice due to the "serious nature" of the matter and lack of "improper purpose" on the part of the prosecution.
If the Supreme Court wanted the case terminated, Alm said, it would have dismissed it without sending it back to the Circuit Court, or it would have sent it to the lower court with instructions to dismiss with prejudice.
Alm also clarified his position on no-contest pleas, saying his reluctance to accept Chun's no-contest plea is not part of a "categorical or blanket" refusal.
Alm noted that he has granted such pleas in the past, but it is his "usual practice" not to do so. A person who pleads no contest is not taking responsibility for his actions, whereas a person who pleads guilty is taking responsibility, he said.
"This court wanted to assure Mr. Chun that it was not unfairly singling out Mr. Chun for harsher treatment because he was a lawyer or for any other reasons," Alm added.
[News] [Business] [Features] [Sports] [Editorial] [Do It Electric!]
[Classified Ads] [Search] [Subscribe] [Info] [Letter to Editor]
[Feedback]
