Login | August 18, 2025
Cuyahoga County officials lose appeal in graft case
ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: May 14, 2014
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of two Cuyahoga County officials recently for violations of federal anti-corruption laws stemming from their participation in several bribery and fraud schemes.
James Dimora and Michael Gabor were convicted by a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio after a 37-day trial where the evidence showed that the men participated in a “host of corrupt bargains and arrangements prohibited by federal law.”
“Expensive trips to Las Vegas in exchange for county patronage, thousands of dollars in cash in exchange for government jobs, extensive home improvements to the tune of $30,000 in exchange for public construction contracts — these and other this-for-that arrangements were more than kindly gestures, more than mere ‘pleases’ and ‘thank yous’ among friends,” wrote Judge Jeffrey Sutton in his opinion issued on behalf of the three-judge appellate panel’s majority.
Most of the court opinion focused on Dimora who, from 1998 to 2010, was one of three elected commissioners for Cuyahoga County.
Case summary states that, until 2011, the commissioners led the government of the county.
Gabor held a minor role in the county’s weights-and-measures office after he paid an official $5,000 for the position.
His employment, however, was “title only” as he spent most of his time running errands for Dimora and arranging kickback schemes.
Gabor received a 121-month prison sentence while Dimora was ordered to serve 336 months in federal prison.
Upon appeal, Gabor and Dimora both claimed that the district court failed to instruct the jury sufficiently on the difference between “gifts given in friendship” and “bribes given in exchange for official acts.”
“No error occurred,” wrote Judge Sutton, who noted that the jurors were told that “efforts to buy favor or generalized goodwill do not necessarily amount to bribery, that official acts may come in the guise of formal and informal influence, and that gifts exchanged solely to cultivate friendship are not bribes.”
The jury was also instructed that bribery and kickbacks involve the “intent to exchange money or other things of value in return for official action.”
The appellate panel concluded that those instructions “fairly trace the line between permissible gifts and impermissible bribes.”
Dimora proceeded to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting four of the 32 counts against him.
Two of the counts involved bribery schemes where Dimora received things of value from Nicholas Zavarella, a masonry contractor, and John Valentin, the owner of a granite shop.
Testimony at trial established that Dimora went to great lengths to help Zavarella, who performed more than $30,000 in free brickwork at Dimora’s home.
Zavarella testified that “Dimora was a friend and a political official, and I figured if I could help him, I’m sure he could help me.”
In exchange for the work, Dimora helped Zavarella’s daughter get a county job and gave Zavarella inside information about county construction projects.
Dimora hid the agreement by creating false, backdated invoices for the work.
Similarly, Valentin installed granite countertops in Dimora’s home in return for “help” and “favors” from the commissioner.
Dimora used his position to acquire immigration green cards for Valentin’s family as well as county jobs.
On the day that Dimora learned the FBI had launched an investigation, he sent a $250 check to Valentin in an attempt to make it appear that he had paid for the work.
“All of this presents strong circumstantial evidence that Dimora had corrupt bargains with these contractors,” wrote Judge Sutton. “When Dimora agreed to these schemes, he crossed the line separating gifts from bribes.”
Dimora’s challenge to his fraud conviction also failed.
According to the trial record, the government introduced evidence that Dimora shared a $121 hotel room with Gina Coppers, who agreed to provide sexual favors in exchange for a government job.
Coppers apparently had very specific demands down to her salary, position and hours that she would work.
“Hotel rooms, a public official, sexual favors, help finding a government job: If there is anything to criticize here, it is not that the evidence fails to support the jury’s verdict; it is that the saga is so cliché,” wrote Judge Sutton.
The appellate panel also concluded that the district court properly excluded from evidence Dimora’s state ethics reports, where he claimed that he reported receiving “gifts” from some alleged bribers in the amount of $75.
Dimora argued that the reports would have presented evidence of “good acts,” proving that he helped some constituents on several occasions without asking for anything of value.
The court of appeals ruled that the exclusion of the report was harmless error because of the overwhelming amount of evidence proving Dimora’s guilt.
Additionally, it held that, since prior “bad acts” may not be used to show a predisposition to commit crimes, prior “good acts” may not be used to show a predisposition not to commit crimes.
“Regrettably for Dimora, the Latin maxim — falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus — false in one, false in all — does not have an inverse corollary: True in one, true in all,” wrote Judge Sutton.
In the end, the judgment of the district court was affirmed with Judge Richard Griffin joining Judge Sutton to form the majority.
Judge Gilbert Merritt dissented in part, arguing that the ethics reports were relevant and that their exclusion from evidence was not harmless error.
The case is cited United States v. Dimora and Gabor, Case Nos. 12-4004/4051.
Copyright © 2014 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved