Expert testimony key to Ahumada's acquittal

Check No. 200526 was placed in a receptacle in a bank’s drive-through commercial lane more than a year ago and as it swirled toward a teller’s hands, the turmoil it unknowingly bred continues to resonate.

This was the Brownsville city-issued $26,139 check that Mayor Pat M. Ahumada Jr. dropped in the Compass Bank’s receptacle on Oct. 28, 2008 that a teller deposited into the mayor’s commercial bank account though it was made payable Oct. 22, 2008 to Tarsia Technical Industries Inc. of Hauppauge, N.Y.

In Ahumada’s retrial last week, a jury Wednesday found the mayor not guilty of theft, abuse of official capacity and misapplication of fiduciary property in the state 107th District Court before visiting Judge Robert C. Pate of Corpus Christi.

The first trial in October 2009 that Cameron County District Attorney Armando R. Villalobos’ Special Prosecutor Luis Saenz and Assistant District Attorney Michael Martinez also prosecuted ended in a mistrial with a deadlocked jury.

Charles L. Williams of Houston is a former banker and paid financial consultant who defense attorneys Ed Cyganiewicz and Star Jones brought in to testify.

And although Saenz had the last words to the jury in closing arguments, the defense had Williams as one of its last witnesses before its closing.

The testimony of Williams and that of some state and defense witnesses, plus the prosecutors’ closing summations, turned out to be crucial for the mayor’s defense, jury foreman Johnny Simmons said.

“To me, it just totally tore the prosecutor’s case apart,” Simmons specifically said of Williams’ testimony.

The state’s case was that Ahumada, however he got the check, and with the intent to deprive its owner, the city, of property, took and deposited the check — which came into his possession by virtue of his position — because he was desperate for cash while waiting for a $70,000 home loan from Compass Bank.

Prosecutors also pointed out that Ahumada had been $185.60 in the red for four days in the Compass account before injecting money from a line of credit from First National Bank.

Ahumada countered that he wasn’t desperate for money and had deposited the check by mistake and without looking at it, thinking that because of the check’s color it was an expense reimbursement check from the city.

In closing arguments Martinez told the jury that “you cannot solve money problems with more money,” otherwise, “you’re borrowing money from Peter to pay Paul.”

Martinez told the jury that Ahumada didn’t have money available to him.

“He didn’t, he had credit,” Martinez argued. “Borrowing money seems to be in the defendant’s history,” Martinez continued.

Saenz also told the jury in closing statements that people with “healthy” bank accounts don’t borrow money.

Simmons said that the prosecution’s arguments struck a chord with he and fellow jurors.

“This hit home. Everyone in there has borrowed money. It’s a credit world,” Simmons said.

The defense showed that the mayor, whose business income is cyclical, had lines of credit from Compass Bank and the First National Bank, overdraft protection, and the ability to obtain loans.

“That is normal banking,” Cyganiewicz countered. “I guess anyone who is in debt or gets loans is a criminal,” Cyganiewicz told the jury in his closing statements.

Cyganiewicz also noted that it’s not easy to obtain lines of credit. “You don’t do that by being dishonest or bouncing checks,” Cyganiewicz added.

Williams, who reviewed Ahumada’s bank statements, testified that lines of credit, loans, and overdrafts happen in the conduct of small business, and that the statements showed that the mayor had very good relationships with both banks.

He also said that Compass would not have loaned Ahumada $70,000 after the deposit was discovered if it had been concerned about it. Compass Bank official Hugh Emerson, a state witness, testified that Ahumada could have received a greater loan given the value of his home.

Furthermore, Williams said that the property, being the money, belongs to whom the check is made payable to.

“There is no victim,” Williams told the jury, noting that no one had been at risk of loss.

“It was very impressive how quickly this mistake was corrected,” Williams said, referring to Ahumada’s coverage of the full amount when he learned of the deposit from Emerson in November.

“These kind of things do happen,” Williams said, noting that he’s twice run across similar situations. The money is returned, “and that was the end of it,” he said.