Deal in the works for LaRoque?

A court hearing was pushed off again last week for a former Kinston lawmaker, and lawyers in the case indicated that they’re having discussions about “resolving the case,” a sign of plea deal discussions.

“The additional request for continuance is to allow the parties sufficient time to finalize discussions regarding resolution of the case and, if the case cannot be resolved, to allow time to obtain certain trial transcripts necessary for the hearing,” wrote Dennis Duffy, an assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case, in a Dec. 6 motion filed in federal court.

Stephen LaRoqueLaRoque, a Kinston Republican who had a powerful role in the 2011 state legislature as the co-chair of the House Rules Committee, was convicted in June by a federal jury of stealing from federally-funded non-profits he ran.

That verdict, which put him at risk of serving more than 90 years in prison,  is unlikely to stand after a juror admitted doing independent research on tax regulations during the course of deliberations. (For background on the case, click here.)

LaRoque’s attorney, Joe Cheshire, has asked for a new trial.

“The parties have continued to engage in frequent communications in hopes of resolving the case,” Duffy wrote in the Dec. 6 motion. “The parties are in the final stages of completing the communications necessary to ascertain whether the hearing will be necessary.”

A Dec. 12 hearing on a motion for a new trial was pushed back to Feb. 13, though a worked-out arrangement could some sooner, according to court filings.

 

11 Comments

  1. GOP Rules

    December 16, 2013 at 3:15 pm

    So Sarah, when do we get to see the running commentary on the corrupt democrat Deb Mcmanus? Are you going to have a play by play on her absconding with taxpayer money?

  2. ML

    December 16, 2013 at 5:34 pm

    When deb faces 10 counts and 90 years in federal prison we’ll see some commentary.

  3. Alan

    December 16, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    Team Civitas playbook: Deflect, Deflect, Deflect….

  4. GOP Rules

    December 17, 2013 at 4:23 pm

    Hmmmm…..guess the liberal response will be crickets. Funny that this blog will be the first to call hypocricy for defending any R, but ignore every D. It is not a matter of the number of counts, it is a matter of ignoring it when it is “one of us” but when it is “one of them” then it is evicerate, evicerate, evicerate per the Blueprint playbook.

  5. Alan

    December 17, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    GOP Rules, do you not have a job and just post here all day long?

  6. ML

    December 17, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    GOP I’ve already agreed with you that there should be cover of dens tax fraud but when even civitas fails to find her tax evasion a compelling enough story how can you complain here?

    The possible explanation for the lack of coverage is likely the drastic difference in the severity of the offenses as evidenced by laroque’s possible 90yr sentence for 10 counts as opposed to 1 count and a likely minimal fine. Apples and oranges but let me reiterate, I agree there should be some coverage of debs charges, however, you can’t complain about the lack of coverage here and not civitas.

  7. GOP Rules

    December 18, 2013 at 10:45 am

    ML/Alan,
    I do not expect Civitas to cover these type things. They are more based in policy vs. the tabloid style reporting. It has nothing to do with severity though….corruption is corruption and there is a true pattern here that the “reporter” who covers corruption ignores it when it is one of their ‘good ole’ boys” or girls in this case.

    I really just need to make it a point to call this site on this hypocricy and the situation like Rucho when they ignore it. Everyone here calls me the Civitas intern or whatever because I point out that democrats do the same thing….but where is the opportunity here to comment otherwise? Search the archives to see how many democrats they call out. Is Fitz and Co. only outraged when a R gets arrested, takes public funds, commits fraud, lies, etc etc? Are democrats as pure as the driven snow? I would at least expect a bit of lip service to make it seem this site has a bit of a grasp on the real worl.

  8. wncgirl

    December 18, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    GOP rules why get all hot and bothered defending a POS like LaRoque? kind’ve like comparing Obama saying “you can keep your insurance” to Bush saying “there are weapons of mass destruction”. Which I wonder in the long run will kill more Americans? Obama lies …. gee you have to get better insurance (so the rest of us don’t have to pay for you) or Bush lies …..tens of thousands of our sons and daughters die
    ( but boy did the good ol boys make some $ ka-ching)

  9. Alan

    December 18, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    Bonus points for wncgirl :-)

  10. GOP Rules

    December 19, 2013 at 8:38 am

    wnc as usual misses the point. Where in my comment is any mention of this Larouqe dude? I could care less about him and his fate. My issue is with the coverage only of the guys who are not in Fitz’s good ole boy network. If you do not see democrat corruption in the same light as republican, and just as worthy of a blog post, then there is something wrong here.

    I get accused of defending Larouqe, but you then ignore that woman who just embezzled some of her employee’s state tax funds…..which is just as bad because it actually affects people who had put a direct trust in her. What would she do when it comes to an ethical situation for the state, where she does not have to look into the eyes of who she represents? Ethics are ethics no matter what letter is beside their name.

  11. GOP Rules with Hypocrisy

    December 19, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    What exactly is ‘GOP Rules’ point, really?

    That a person clearly biased in favor of the GOP (they think it ‘rules’) expects perfect comprehensive objectivity from somebody else?

    GOP Rules has that condition — now what is called, again? — where a person who has contributed no work is absolutely sure what everybody else is supposed to be doing.