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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT