Kohring retrial denied

MAT-SU — A federal district court judge in Anchorage has denied Vic Kohring’s motion asking the judge to recuse himself and for Kohring to receive a new trial. The former longtime Mat-Su Valley state legislator was convicted in late 2007 on charges of bribery, corruption and attempted extortion.

Kohring will be sentenced 9:30 a.m. Thursday, May 8 in Anchorage.

Kohring was a sitting state representative from Wasilla when he was indicted on federal charges relating to money he received from former officials from oil field services company VECO at the time the state was considering revising petroleum taxes.

In early February, his lawyer, Seattle-based John Henry Browne, argued Kohring should receive a new trial and claimed Judge John Sedwick was biased against him. In a 29-page decision, Sedwick, in essence, ruled Monday that Kohring’s motions were filed late and, even if they weren’t, are baseless.

Kohring had argued that though he realized seven to 10 days after his trial that the judge may have been biased, he needed time to research voting records and talk to lawyers and judges before taking such a drastic step as challenging Sedwick’s impartiality. As such, Browne wrote on Kohring’s behalf, the motion came more than two months after the former lawmaker’s conviction.

Sedwick didn’t buy it.

“Kohring has failed to establish that he filed the motion within a reasonable time after discovering the facts that he now asserts give rise to the appearance of a lack of impartiality,” the judge says in his ruling.

One of the contentions Kohring raised was that Sedwick lives catty-corner to Bill Allen, the former CEO of VECO who admitted to bribing Kohring and testified at his trial. He also argued Sedwick went to high school with Rick Smith, another VECO executive who also testified against Kohring.

Sedwick’s ruling says Kohring’s claims don’t stand up and that case law seems to indicate mere acquaintance with a witness is not enough to force a judge to recuse himself.

The other part of Kohring’s argument involves Sedwick’s wife, Deborah Sedwick. In 1997 and 1998, during Kohring’s time as a legislator, he pushed changes to the state Department of Commerce that, Kohring argued, merged her department with another and eliminated her position.

Sedwick rules on each piece of evidence Kohring argues shows he butted heads with Deborah Sedwick. In each instance, Sedwick rules the relationship between his wife and Kohring, far from being uncivil, demonstrated an ability on the part of both parties to disagree on political issues without taking it personally.

“Even if one could somehow assume that Ms. Sedwick harbored some personal antagonism or hostility during the 1997-99 period, there is no basis upon which an informed and thoughtful person could possibly conclude that the ill-will was so pervasive and deep-seated that it has lived on for nearly a decade,” Sedwick says in his ruling.