Kott seeks acquittal or chance in new trial

In a 12-page memorandum filed last week, Kott's lawyer argues that, among other reasons, Kott should be acquitted because former Veco Corp. chief executive Bill Allen was foremost his friend and anything Kott received was simply a gift.

A jury convicted Kott on Sept. 25 of bribery, conspiracy and extortion but acquitted him of wire fraud. During the 15-day trial, jurors heard dozens of secretly made recordings that prosecutors used to prove that Kott plotted with former Veco Corp. executives Allen and Rick Smith to push through a new oil tax rate favored by North Slope producers in 2006.

Allen, who along with Smith has pleaded guilty to bribery and conspiracy, testified in Kott's trial that oil producers wanted tax stability before they would commit to a natural gas pipeline. Veco could have made millions off the pipeline. The oil field services company was taken over by CH2M Hill right before Kott's trial.

Defense lawyer Jim Wendt argues in the new court filing that there was no evidence of a connection between the Petroleum Profits Tax and anything that Kott received.

"There was no nexus to the PPT legislation established and as a result any alleged benefits that the defendant received could have been construed as simply gifts from a benefactor that Pete Kott has known for years," Wendt says.

Wendt raises some of the same points the defense brought up before U.S. Judge John Sedwick during the trial, especially as it relates to how the jury was instructed to consider the evidence. The judge rejected the arguments at the time.

Prosecutors will respond in court, said Bryan Sierra, U.S. Justice Department spokesman. They haven't yet filed a response, but will soon, he said.

Testimony and other evidence at the trial showed that Kott received the promise of a job from Veco, $1,000 cash, a $7,993 check for an inflated flooring invoice, and a $2,750 political poll for his re-election bid.

Kott, a Republican who represented Eagle River in the House for seven terms, lost in the 2006 primary election.

The conspiracy conviction, Wendt argues, makes no sense on its face. To convict Kott of that charge, jurors were told they had to find that Kott, Allen and Smith conspired to commit at least one other crime, extortion, bribery or wire fraud. But Wendt asks how could Allen, Smith and Veco be both victims of extortion and part of the conspiracy to commit it?

"A 'victim' cannot 'conspire' to be extorted. It is inherently illogical," the defense lawyer says.

Prosecutors could have put on a case to show a bigger conspiracy including state Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch and former Senate President Ben Stevens, but they didn't, Wendt says. Now they are stuck with a conspiracy limited to Kott and the Veco executives, the defense says.

Weyhrauch was to be tried alongside Kott but his case was split off so the government could appeal a ruling on evidence. Stevens has not been charged but both Allen and Smith testified that they pleaded guilty to bribing Stevens, along with Kott.

Still, if jurors thought that Kott received bribes as part of the conspiracy, that argument appears to deflate.

As to extortion itself, Wendt argues that the government should have had to prove Kott explicitly promised to do what Veco wanted in exchange for benefits, and that he did as promised -- quid pro quo. That's because much of what he received could be considered campaign contributions, and there's a different standard as to what amounts to extortion of campaign contributions, the defense says.

Both sides agree that the flooring invoice was inflated to get money to Kott's son, Peter M. Kott, so he could manage his father's 2006 re-election campaign, the defense filing says. And the poll obviously was for the campaign.

Still, in the trial, the defense tried to convince jurors the nearly $8,000 check was for future flooring work. That strategy didn't play well with jurors when witnesses gave different stories about the flooring work. Kott and his son have a hardwood flooring business.

At any rate, the defense says that the evidence showed that the money and other things were to reward Kott, not to influence him. He wasn't bribed, the defense maintains.

Find Lisa Demer online at adn.com/contact/ldemer or call 257-4390.