IBJNews

Ex-Countrymark CEO denied early prison release

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former Countrymark CEO David Swanson lost his appeal on Wednesday to be released from prison early.

The 69-year-old former financial executive is serving a 12-year sentence on wire fraud, money laundering and tax-evasion charges.

A federal appeals court in October heard his appeal that claimed his lawyers were derelict in not seeking a mistrial after the government presented its case.

Swanson argued during a March 2011 hearing in Indianapolis that the government failed to disclose evidence favorable to him and that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel.

But, in a May ruling, Judge Sarah Evans Barker picked apart Swanson’s arguments, including a claim that his attorneys—James Voyles and Jennifer Lukemeyer—were derelict in not seeking a mistrial after the government presented its case.

The federal appeals court in Chicago, however, agreed to hear his appeal of Barker’s ruling, which it affirmed.

Swanson’s lawyers argued that he should have served no more than eight years and one month had his previous counsel effectively defended him.

“Swanson advances an implausible interpretation: his trial counsel waived his objection to the [sentencing] enhancement,” the federal judges wrote in denying his appeal. “The record simply doesn’t support this interpretation.”

A jury found Swanson guilty in October 2002 of stealing $2.7 million from Countrymark, an Indianapolis-based agricultural cooperative, in the late 1990s.

He failed to appear for sentencing in March 2003 and was apprehended in Seattle about three weeks later.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Another waste of time
    Serve your time like a man, Mr. Swanson. Quit crying because not even your expensive lawyers can pull enough magic tricks to get you out of this one. You enjoyed the money, now enjoy all of your new friends on the inside.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

ADVERTISEMENT