Don and Sheila Hill’s attorneys discuss week one of corruption trial

by Ruth Ferguson of North Dallas Gazette

Four years later, Don and Shelia Hill are finally having their day in court. Their attorneys look forward to responding and presenting a spirited defense of their clients in a court of law instead of the court of opinion and speculation.

After extensive surveillance resulting in 30,000 taped conversations, along with video and photographs, the corruption trial is at last underway. The FBI's investigation resulted in fourteen individuals being charged, however, nine have pled guilty and are slated to testify against the Hills and their co-defendants.

The trial is on recess this week because of a juror's previously planned vacation. The attorneys for Mr. and Mrs. Hill spoke by phone on Tuesday regarding the first week of a trial expected to last through August.

Attorney Victor Vital, who represents Mrs. Hill, is a partner in the litigation division of Baker & Botts, LLP.

Vital shared, "We were pleased to be there in court and to finally have a chance to present our view of the world in terms of the allegations, and tell the public exactly where we stand. We saw what we expected to see and heard what we expected to hear."

Attorney Ray Jackson is the managing partner for the Jackson Law Firm; he is representing former Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill, who is also an attorney.

Jackson observed, "We laid our case out in our opening statement and now is time to present evidence to support the case." He indicated, "It is interesting to hear how the government is interpreting the wire taps and conversations."

But according to Jackson, "The jury has gotten a chance to hear from what the government plans to prove, they have heard the worst."

The first two days of presenting their case, the prosecution played excerpts from audiotape conversations, including a conversation between co-defendants Darrin Reagan and former Dallas Planning Commissioner D'Angelo Lee. The government presented a photo which they allege shows Reagan giving Mr. Hill $10,000 in cash behind Friendship Baptist Church on February 22, 2005.

Despite rampant speculation, the Hills' attorneys are confident their clients will be vindicated. Jackson said the audiotapes played for the jury are just excerpts; "We are going to put all this in context" during the trial. The first opportunity will come next week when they cross-examine FBI Special Agent Allen Wilson currently testifying.

If a good defense is a good offense, the Hill's legal team is not shying away from the obvious questions listeners will likely have after hearing the excerpts such as, "I'm going to hold Bill's feet to the fire," Reagan is heard saying. "Bill is not going to come in here and not utilize black contractors."

Using their opening arguments Jackson said, "We told the jury that because these contractors were building in the minority sector, Mr. Hill was an avid believer they [developers] should be using minority contractors."

It was because of the developer's failure to use minority contractors as promised was the reason that Hill pulled those items from the city council agenda Jackson explained, "It was not because of some extortion scheme," as the government alleges.

When asked about the photo showing an exchange between Reagan and Hill, Jackson countered, "We believe the evidence will show that the monies Mr. Hill received were merely a campaign contribution." Jackson added these monies are a matter of public record, and contends Mr. Hill did not personally receive $10,000.

Although married, the Hills, as well as the other defendants will present "separate defenses through their own counsel." However, Vital shared, "There is a great amount of collaboration among the lawyers of the case," but in the end they are charged with representing the individual interests of their client.

Vital described the governments allegations against Mrs. Hill as, "She conspired to move bribe money for developers to public officials. She is also accused of money laundering."

Courtroom watchers were surprised to learn in the defense's opening statement of Mr. Hill's plan to take the witness stand. However, according to Vital, a final decision has not been made regarding Mrs. Hill's plans to testify.

"That is a decision that we continue to think about and deliberate," Vital stated.

While some might interpret the government's allegations that the conspirators were out to make white businessmen pay to do business in South Dallas as adding heavy racial overtones to the case, the Hill's attorneys are not concerned.

Jackson stated, "I am not concerned about the racial overtones, their interpretation of what they [prosecutors] heard and listened to is not evidence." He added, the government can make statements, but then the evidence must substantiate it.

Even if damaging, Vital is not overly concerned about the perception listeners may gain from what they have heard so far. Vital believes, both the public and the jury understand there are two sides to every story, and stated, "In America we get to cross examine."

If there is one arena that defendants, perhaps, do not always feel they get a fair examination of the evidence, it is in the media.

Vital was particularly displeased with the coverage the Dallas Morning News has offered. "The press in this country is a pretty powerful. Journalism has to be responsible and fair, when I read some of the pieces I read, it kind of takes me back. Folks are being tried and convicted before the public have a chance to hear the evidence."

He added, "I and the Hills are dismayed by the press coverage that we are seeing from more established media outlets. They have latched on to the government's theory of the evidence. To use the word shakedown is irresponsible because we have not heard all the evidence."

Vital feels that, "When you look at the Dallas Morning News, the only conclusion is that the people involved are guilty. The defendants on trial pled not guilty. There is a story that will be told in full view, not just in snippets."

However, like Jackson, Vital is confident that the jury -- and the public -- are, open-minded enough to hear the entire case.

Discussing the audiotape conversation between Mr. Hill and at the time, Ms. Farrington -- regarding a BMW given to Mr. Hill by Farrington -- Vital points out there are no references to bribe money, or statements such as, "I'm glad Brian bought the car."

Vital candidly stated, "Am I defending everything on the call morally? No. But does that mean they should go to jail because one of the Ten Commandments was violated? That is what the government is telling us, and the Dallas Morning News latched on to it." He added, "If folks believe in the Scriptures, there is a day of reckoning coming."

When asked if he is concerned about the jury being judgmental, Vital shared that coming into the trail it was a concern. However, he stated, "That is why you have jury selection. We talked to this jury about the extramarital affair. It was wrong, it does not mean that a federal crime was committed."

Vital contends such overreaching by the government is a slippery slope, because it opens the door to the idea of people being convicted, "just because folks do one thing wrong."

He closed by saying that he believes, "The jury will judge us based on evidence and not past sin."

• Staff
• Verified User
• Anonymous