IBJNews

Jury begins deliberations in Durham fraud trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The jury began deliberations Wednesday morning in the federal fraud trial of financier Tim Durham and two co-defendants.

U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson at 9:50 a.m. finished reading jury instructions on the 12-count indictment against Durham and co-defendants Jim Cochran and Rick Snow, and turned over the case to the panel of 12 jurors and four alternates.

The judge told two of the alternates they were free to go home, but told them they could stay if they want to observe deliberations. Only the 12 jurors are allowed to offer opinions and discuss the case.

The group will be sequestered during deliberations, eating meals at the federal courthouse until they reach a verdict. The court also arranged rooms at an undisclosed hotel in case the jury is not on pace to reach its verdict by Wednesday evening, Magnus-Stinson noted.

Attorneys for the prosecution and defense offered their closing arguments Tuesday afternoon, a few hours after defense attorneys for the three defendants rested. The trial began June 11 in U.S. District Court.

The defense presentations lasted less than two hours and did not include testimony from Durham or his co-defendants. The U.S. Attorney's Office offered six days of testimony, thousands of pages of documents and recordings from FBI wiretaps as it tried to convince jurors that the defendants ran Ohio-based Fair Finance as a Ponzi scheme, defrauding investors of more than $200 million.

Durham, Cochran and Snow are facing 10 counts of wire fraud, one count of securities fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud. If convicted, they face decades in prison and steep fines.

To catch up on IBJ's coverage of Fair Finance and Tim Durham, click here. For up-to-the-minute updates, follow @PropertyLines and @IBJNews on Twitter.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT