Job Losses: Another Cost of White Collar Crime

Depiction from foreclosure.org]

We have discussed some of the serious costs of white collar crime before in this blog. Costs of fraud and corruption include not only the economic or financial costs, but also the social costs, including increased cynicism, or lack of trust, in our basic social institutions. But have you ever also considered that white collar crime can also, in some cases, cost jobs? Consider the following case.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Peter DeSantis, of Engineered Architectural Systems in Alpharetta, Georgia, explained yesterday that he had to lay off employees during this recession due to recent thefts allegedly committed by a former employee. According to the news report, the former employee, Karalee Sciukas, was indicted this past month by a Forsyth County grand jury for allegedly stealing about $250,000.00, over several years, while employed as comptroller with the architectural company. According to the report, she allegedly wrote checks to herself and to other businesses which she reportedly controlled, and which were allegedly disguised as vendor payments.

Of course, Ms. Sciukas is presumed innocent and is entitled to her day in court. And the facts of that particular case are not the point of this post, anyway. The point is that white collar crime can have many serious costs and consequences, including lay-offs of employees during a bad economy.

As a former federal prosecutor, (and currently, as an Augusta, GA criminal defense lawyer), I have seen the devastating losses caused by fraud and corruption. I believe we can all agree that job losses are a serious problem and a serious cost of white collar crime.

The GBI's Latest Probe of a GA State Senator

[Photo of Scales of Justice from ehow.com]

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation has reportedly been requested by the State Attorney General to investigate false expense reports allegedly submitted by State Senator Don Balfour of Snellville.  Of course, Senator Balfour is presumed to be innocent of any wrongdoing, and his criminal defense lawyer has essentially indicated simply that mistakes were made and that there was no intentional wrongdoing.

The newspaper also pointed out that this is the first GBI investigation of a State Senator since a case which I handled as a (former) federal prosecutor against former Georgia Senate Majority Leader Charles Walker, here in Augusta, back in 2007. The GBI has some really talented agents. My case against Senator Walker also involved other law enforcement agencies and a number of other more complex criminal charges. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens in this latest investigation.

  

Presumption of Innocence: The Decision Not To Testify

All my career, both as former prosecutor and current defense attorney, I have heard people say, "If the defendant is really innocent, why didn't he take the witness stand?" If you were chosen to be a juror in a criminal case, could you follow a judge's instructions that you must not hold it against the defendant if he or she chose not to testify?

The 5th Amendment essentially protects each of us against having to testify and perhaps (unintentionally) incriminating ourselves. Also, judges always instruct juries that each defendant is presumed to be innocent and that the defendant does not have to testify. But like a lot of defense lawyers, I live in the real world and I am always afraid that some jurors will overlook the judge's instructions and hold it against my client if he decides not to take the witness stand.

As a result, I always carefully discuss the pros and cons with my client before my client decides whether or not to take the stand.

It is important to point out that there are many reasons, aside from any question as to guilt or innocence, as to why a defendant might choose not to testify. For example, some defendants might be innocent, but inarticulate. In other words, in this situation, the defendant and his attorney might be afraid that, if he testifies, an experienced prosecutor might be able to twist his words and make him look guilty. In other situations, while the defendant may be innocent, he may also have a bad temper. In that situation, the defendant and his defense lawyer may fear that the prosecutor may try to make him look guilty by making him lose his cool on the witness stand. Folks, these things can happen in the real world and in a real trial!

Each criminal case is different. And in each case, it is critical that a lawyer and client should carefully consider and discuss the client's decision about testifying. But it is also important to recognize the harsh reality that some jurors may simply hold it against the defendant if he or she exercises their Constitutional right not to testify.

What do you think? Would you be able to follow a judge's instructions? And please be honest: Would you hold it against a defendant who chose not to testify?