Opinion ID: 778535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Patrick Graham's Reliability

Text: 13 The Government's application for a wiretap order was supported by the affidavit of FBI agent Freddy Cleveland. Agent Cleveland stated that the facts and circumstances showing probable cause were developed through a cooperating witness (or CW), who was later identified as Patrick Graham. In his affidavit, which was dated June 26, 1996, Agent Cleveland began his discussion with the following statement: 14 The CW has provided information to Special Agents of the FBI since April 30, 1996. Since his cooperation with the FBI, he has never been known to provide false or misleading information. The CW has made numerous consensual telephone and body recordings with CECIL BROWN, which have verified portions of the information set forth in this affidavit. A review of the various records pertaining to the CW reveals that on March 20, 1996, a District Court Grand Jury in Harris County, Texas indicted the CW for one (1) count of Money Laundering and one (1) count of Theft by Sting. This matter is pending and is scheduled for trial on July 29, 1996. The CW is also the target of a federal tax and corruption investigation in the Houston, Texas area, currently being handled by the FBI and the IRS in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office. 15 In spite of the agent's disclosure of the pending criminal charges and investigation, and the Government's corroboration of much of what Graham had told them, Brown contends that the Government deliberately misled the district judge (Judge Donald Walter) as to Patrick Graham's trustworthiness. 16 Brown argues that the Government did not believe that Graham was even minimally trustworthy. Brown's primary argument on this point is based on a statement made in different court proceedings by the same Assistant U.S. Attorney who had applied for the wiretap order. In a bankruptcy proceeding in Texas in September 1996 — which involved Patrick Graham's brother's wife — the AUSA told the court that the Grahams are not credible: [T]he things that we're not able to independently corroborate, we believe are lies. And that's the way it has to be when you deal with the Grahams. As Brown admits, the AUSA made this statement nearly three months after he had obtained the wiretap order. Even if we assume that the later statement accurately reflects the Government's view of Patrick Graham's credibility as of June 1996, we do not believe that Agent Cleveland's affidavit falsely implied that Patrick Graham was trustworthy. As noted above, the affidavit recites the various charges brought against Graham (although Brown complains that the sterile recitation of pending charges did not adequately reveal the extent of Graham's criminal nature). And immediately after stating that Graham had not been known to provide false or misleading information, Agent Cleveland emphasized that the FBI had made numerous consensual telephone and body recordings that corroborated significant aspects of Graham's story. 17 In sum, the affidavit provided to Judge Walter contains enough information with respect to Graham's reliability for the judge to make a proper ruling on the question of probable cause. Brown has failed to show that the allegations in Agent Cleveland's supporting affidavit were made with a reckless disregard for the truth and for the purpose of bolstering Patrick Graham's credibility. Brown thus does not meet the standard set forth in the first prong of the Franks test. 18 Moreover, even if we assume arguendo that Patrick Graham could not be trusted, and we set to one side all the allegations that are not independently corroborated, the affidavit still contains enough evidence to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed. 19 Patrick Graham's narrative, reduced to its essentials, may be summarized as follows: In mid-1992, Graham and several of his business partners began lobbying for the right to develop a juvenile detention center in Jena, Louisiana. To secure political support for the project, Graham arranged a meeting with Cecil Brown, a friend of Governor Edwards. After several false starts, Graham thought he had obtained financing for the Jena project. Graham asserted that Governor Edwards agreed to pressure Richard Stalder, the director of the Louisiana Department of Corrections, to enter into a cooperative endeavor agreement with Graham. In return, Graham agreed to pay Edwards and Brown $2.5 million. Graham claims that he made a $245,000 cash payment in 1994. Then, Graham and Brown (in FBI Agent Cleveland's words) signed a contract for services, dated December 1, 1994, to account for [$600,000 in cash] given to BROWN. A copy of the contract has been provided to FBI agents by the CW. FBI agents also obtained a copy of the agreements between Graham and the Louisiana Department of Corrections. The date when the state officials approved the project corresponds to Graham's account of when Edwards was lobbying on his behalf. 20 In late 1995, Graham and his partners agreed to sell their interest in the Jena prison project to a Houston attorney (Douglas Bech) for $4.8 million, including $1.3 million owed to unnamed creditors. Graham asserts that the $1.3 million represented the remainder of the money owed to Brown and Edwards. Graham expected that the sale would be finalized in the summer of 1996. FBI agents obtained a copy of Viewpoint Development's contract with Bech and confirmed the numbers Graham had given them. 21 By early 1996, Graham had been indicted for two criminal offenses and was under investigation by the FBI. Graham began cooperating with the FBI on April 30, 1996, and with Graham's consent, the FBI began taping telephone and in-person conversations between Graham and Brown. 22 During the May 8th conversation, Brown and Graham talked about the remaining money that Graham's partners owed. Graham and Brown tried to negotiate the exact amount. Graham said, Now what I have given you all so far totals up to by the time you figure the tax, you know, it was cash. By the time you figure the tax, it's like a million dollars. So you offset. That leaves a balance of 1.5. Brown responded, All right. A little later in that conversation, Brown said that unless he received $1.7 million during the closing, they would have problems. The parties failed to reach a definite agreement, but Brown suggested that Graham put to paper everything that was paid to date. 23 From May 9 to May 13, 1996, FBI agents recorded (again with Graham's consent) three telephone conversations, the essence of which was that Graham and Brown would meet in person to go over the figures. On May 29, Graham and Brown met at a crawfish boil at Brown's house. At the FBI's direction, Graham prepared a memo regarding the two payments — $245,000 and $600,000 in cash — already made to Brown. The FBI also recorded the conversation, which included references to the memo. Brown suggested that he would talk to our friend (whom the Government believes was Edwin Edwards), and a court-authorized pen register revealed a telephone call from Brown's residence to Edwards's residence on May 30th. 24 On June 7, FBI agents again recorded a telephone conversation between Brown and Graham. Brown said that he had discussed the specific numbers with their friend the day after the crawfish boil. Brown then demanded more money and suggested that the Department of Corrections might hold up the Jena project. Graham and Brown agreed to meet again. At this point, the Government prepared to request a wiretap for the telephones in Brown's house and business. 25 Having reviewed the information contained in the affidavit, we will focus on the allegations that are either undisputed or corroborated. It is undisputed that Graham and his partners were seeking state approval to proceed with the Jena prison project. The memorandum that Graham prepared and Brown tacitly approved indicated that Graham had already made two payments totaling $845,000 to Cecil Brown in December 1994. (Graham and Brown later suggested that these cash payments were equivalent to more than $1 million before taxes.) Shortly after the $600,000 payment was made, state officials entered into a cooperative endeavor agreement with Graham and his partners. More than a year later, when Venture Development was selling its interest in the project, the purchase price included a $1.3 million payment for unnamed creditors. On the recorded conversations, Graham and Brown emphasized that they wanted to keep Edwin or our friend happy because he still had the ability to put the project on hold. Graham and Brown also discussed the money that had been paid thus far and how much more was owed. Brown told Graham that he had to consult with him, and a pen register indicated that a call was placed from Brown's residence to Edwards's residence the following day. Brown then suggested that the Jena project would be in trouble if Graham and his partners could not pay more money. 26 To be sure, there are many allegations in the affidavit that are not independently confirmed. Graham told the FBI that he had met with Edwin Edwards several times personally, that Edwards had set the $2.5 million price, and that he saw Brown leave the $245,000 and $600,000 cash payments in Edwards's office in the Governor's Mansion. These allegations are reported in FBI Agent Cleveland's affidavit, but they are not corroborated. Even if we assume that Graham cannot be believed, and we exclude all allegations that are not corroborated, the affidavit still contains sufficient information to establish probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed or was being committed. In our view, the recorded conversations independently corroborate the salient aspects of Patrick Graham's story. 2