Kohring sentencing on hold

MAT-SU — Vic Kohring, a former Mat-Su Valley state legislator convicted of bribery and corruption, remains free as a federal court considers a pair of motions asking for a new trial and for the judge to recuse himself.

A date is still yet to be set for Kohring’s sentencing and, in the meantime, U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick has not ruled as to whether the former seven-time state representative, convicted in late 2007 of bribery, corruption and attempted extortion, should have a new judge hear his case. In early February, Kohring filed a motion to dismiss his indictment or receive a new trial, citing an alleged conflict of interest.

In view of that, Sedwick canceled Kohring’s sentencing hearing and has not re-scheduled it.

According to Kohring, he passed legislation in 1997 and 1998 that increased the responsibility of judge’s wife, Deborah Sedwick, within the state Department of Commerce and Economic Development. The legislation cut funding for her department, merged it with another, slashed her travel budget and, eventually, eliminated her position, Kohring’s motion says.

Deborah Sedwick was very critical of the cuts, the motion says. Furthermore, Sedwick lived catty-corner to Bill Allen, former CEO of Veco oil services corp., who admitted to bribing Kohring during Kohring’s trial. Rick Smith, another former Veco executive who testified against Kohring, went to high school with Sedwick.

In February, Judge Sedwick referred the case to another judge, H. Russell Holland.

“With respect to the legislation which defendant Kohring characterizes as having eliminated my wife’s position, I have no recollection of his involvement,” Sedwick says in his order sending the matter to Holland. “I do recall that while my wife was commissioner of the Department of Commerce legislation was enacted pursuant to which that department was combined with another department, and my wife became the commissioner of the combined department.”

Holland eventually sent the matter back to Sedwick, saying precedent seems to indicate Sedwick has to decide it.

In the meantime, Kohring’s attorney, Seattle-based John Henry Browne, filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing on the matter. Sedwick is waiting on the U.S. Attorney’s office response to that motion, due March 21.

The U.S. Attorneys have, for their part, responded to Kohring’s motion for Sedwick to recuse himself.

In the first place, attorneys Joseph Bottini and Edward Sullivan argue, the motion came in late. It was due Nov. 12, seven days after Kohring’s conviction. Secondly, the motion is baseless, the attorneys argue.

“Kohring, at best, has tendered only rumors, innuendoes and unsupported allegations in support of his motion,” they say in their response.

Deborah Sedwick was not a foe of Kohring’s. Her job, if anything, only improved after the legislation in question, the response says. Kohring’s association with the judge’s wife was remote and he was one of a number of legislators who created and passed the legislation. In the end, she ended up in a more senior position and her salary, since the cuts, has only increased.

The connections to Allen and Smith are similarly tenuous, the prosecutors say.

“As a near life-long resident of Southcentral Alaska, Kohring is well-aware that Anchorage is a small community,” the response says. “Consequently, prominent individuals — such as judges, former governors, politicians and businessmen — often reside in the same small neighborhoods and, not surprisingly, previously attended the same secondary schools.”

For his part, Browne wrote that he acted promptly after discovering the potential conflict of interest and giving it the proper amount of research.

Browne goes on to cite a number of news reports and transcripts of government hearings that support his claims that Deborah Sedwick vigorously opposed Kohring’s legislation. In April 1998, Kohring initiated a legislative meeting with a joke about cutting all funding to her department, Brown argues.

“Ms. Sedwick was clearly angered and glared at Mr. Kohring from across the table while her faced turned red,” he says. “Since that moment, Ms. Sedwick has acted resentful towards Mr. Kohring.”

He went on to say, as to the connection of the judge to Allen, that the Sedwicks must have come into contact with Allen, whose yard was not 30 feet from their own.

As to the connection with Smith, “While typically this type of indirect relationship is immaterial, … when viewed in conjunction with the contentious association between Mr. Kohring and Ms. Sedwick and the fact that Bill Allen lives catty-corner from the Sedwicks, all of these circumstances combined should have beckoned for Judge Sedwick’s recusal.”

Contact Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com or 352-2270.