If you haven’t been keeping up with the trial of former delegate Phil Hamilton, now would be a good time to catch up. The trial in Richmond on federal bribery and extortion charges related to his obtaining a position at Old Dominion University has already been like a soap opera with bad actors.
Monday’s testimony was from David Blackburn, a former official at ODU who hired Hamilton. Testifying under a grant of immunity, Blackburn admitted to being “less than forthcoming about the Hamilton situation on other occasions, including his responses to the legislative ethics panel, an ODU audit and the grand jury.”
Tuesday, the former dean of education took the stand, also under a grant of immunity. Admitting that he, too, had been less than candid, he dropped a bombshell:
William Graves, who was ODU’s dean of education at the time, testified Tuesday about an August 2006 meeting that he attended in [former ODU President Roseann] Runte’s office with Runte, Hamilton and David Blackburn, an administrator who worked for Graves.
At that meeting, Graves testified, Hamilton promised to support funding for the new center in the legislature.
At one point Hamilton stepped out of the room, Graves said, and Runte gave him an order.
“She looked at me and Mr. Blackburn and said, ‘That man wants a job,’ ” Graves said. ” ‘Make him director or something.’ ”
Asked his reaction, Graves said, “I think I nodded and said, ‘Yes, ma’am.’ “
Runte tried unsuccessfully to avoid giving a deposition in the case. Her videotaped testimony will come later.
Current ODU president John Broderick also testified yesterday.
Of interest to me will be the emails between Hamilton and his wife that are to be introduced. Some legal experts say these emails will be the basis of an appeal if Hamilton is convicted.
The trial is expected to last a week.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I can understand the basis for that as a challenge. I can also see how that challenge might be denied. Interesting to see how that shakes out.
I think it’s kind of interesting that by Judge Hudson’s reasoning, because Hamilton hadn’t made an attempt to protect the emails, marriage privilege is waived and the contents are admissible. So does it follow that if he’d attempted to delete or destroy these emails so that they couldn’t have been inspected or used as evidence against him, the contents would have been inadmissible in any event, even if the FBI had successfully recovered some or all of them?
I wondered about that, too. While it may be the basis for an appeal, I have my doubts as to whether it will succeed.
In the meantime, bring on the emails 😉
The emails are from Hamilton’s legislative email address. Not sure how there’d be any expectation of privacy.
I thought they were from his NNPS email address?
Maybe both. I’m pretty sure some are from leg address. In either case those are public documents subject to FOIA, so no expectation of privacy.
From the story:
Those were the ones I was speaking of.
“Me and Mr. Blackburn?”