News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
WASHINGTON--President Reagan's one-time political director, Lyn Nofziger, was convicted yesterday of illegally lobbying top White House aides by jurors who said they had no trouble finding evidence of influence-peddling.
"The evidence just kept coming up all the time," said Towana Braxton, the foreman of the federal court jury that convicted Nofziger of three counts of illegally representing private clients at the White House within a year of his resignation from Reagan's staff in January 1982.
The jury, which deliberated about six hours, cleared Nofziger of a fourth illegal lobbying charge and acquitted his partner, Mark A. Bragg, of a single aiding and abetting allegation.
Nofziger, the first former high government official convicted under the revolving-door provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, attacked the statute as a "lousy law" and compared his offense with "running a stop sign."
"I feel I am innocent. I don't think I did anything wrong," said the 63-year-old Nofziger, whose lawyers vowed to appeal the convictions.
The former White House political director, who dates his association to the president back to Reagan's days as governor of California, could receive a maximum two-year sentence and a $10,000 fine for each of three convictions.
But lawyers familiar with the case said it was unlikely the former presidential aide would be given a prison term at his sentencing, which was set for March 25 by U.S. District Judge Thomas A. Flannery.
Independent Counsel James C. McKay said he found the verdict depressing because "I just hate to see someone get convicted of a felony. But we felt we had to do our job."
But McKay said, "We think the jury's verdict confirms what we felt from the beginning: that we had a case to make and we made it."
White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said, "We won't have any comment" on Nofziger's conviction.
The jury's verdict was announced at 11:55 a.m., nearly 90 minutes after the panel began its second day of deliberations.
Nofziger was convicted of appealing to then-presidential counselor Edwin Meese III in an April 8, 1982, memo for help getting Wedtech Corp. a $32 million no-bid Army contract.
The memo suggested that Meese, now attorney general, enlist top administration officials, including Reagan himself, to persuade the Army to give Wedtech the engine contract.
Nofziger also was found guilty of illegally lobbying the White House for continued production of the Air Force's A-10 aircraft for Fairchild Republic Corporation and a policy of putting civilians on Navy support ships.
Civilian manning was favored by the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, which paid Nofziger's firm $100,000 for his services.
The jury acquitted Nofziger of another illegal lobbying charge involving Wedtech, clearing Bragg of a charge he aided and abetted that contact.
On that charge, the defense denied that Nofziger signed a May 28, 1982, letter to Meese's deputy, James E. Jenkins, about Wedtech and suggested the signature had been forged by former Wedtech lobbyist Stephen Denlinger.
Jurors said there wasn't enough circumstantial evidence that Nofziger actually signed the letter. No witness could identify the "Lyn" inscribed on the letter as Nofziger's handwriting.
"We felt that there was a possibility that Mr. Nofziger signed it," said juror Leslie Charles. But "there was a possibility that someone else signed it for him."
"What really made us decide were the letters" that Nofziger sent to Meese on about Wedtech and to Jenkins on Aug. 20, 1982, about civilian manning of Navy ships, Charles said.
Except for the May 28, 1982, letter to Jenkins, the defense conceded that Nofziger made all the contacts charged in the indictment but contended he did not violate the ethics law because the issues he raised were not of "direct and substantial interest" to the White House.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.