Craig appeal won’t make new arguments

Idaho Sen. Larry Craig will make the same arguments in his Minnesota appeal that he made earlier to a district judge in his unsuccessful attempt to take back a guilty plea to disorderly conduct charges in a sex-solicitation sting.

In court documents filed Friday, Craig’s attorneys gave a “statement of the case” that summarizes his arguments on appeal. They walk, step by step, through the same points rejected by Hennepin County District Judge Charles Porter in a 27-page decision on Oct. 4.

“They don’t have any other arguments to make,” said University of Minnesota law professor Stephen Simon. “They’re just saying that based on the relevant law, the judge decided wrongly. Now, it’s an uphill battle, because appellate courts tend to defer to trial courts, especially in discretionary areas such as this.”

Craig’s filing said he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because it was “not supported by the evidence,” and because he claims Minnesota’s disorderly conduct statute is unconstitutional. He also argues that his plea should be thrown out on a technicality, “because it was not accepted by the sentencing judge.” Judge Porter specifically rejected all those arguments in his Oct. 4 ruling.

Craig’s attorneys will offer further details of their arguments on appeal in formal legal briefs, to be filed within the next month and a half. It could take as long as 15 months – until January 2009 – for the Minnesota Court of Appeals to issue a ruling in the case.

The senator was arrested in a men’s room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on June 11 as part of an undercover investigation into lewd conduct there that ensnared 40 men in a four-month period. Craig signed a guilty plea to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct on Aug. 1 and mailed it in to the court, where it was recorded Aug. 8.

On Aug. 27, a Washington, D.C., newspaper reported the incident, prompting Craig to declare that he’d done nothing wrong and that an undercover officer had misconstrued his foot and hand movements under the bathroom stall wall. Craig said his mistakes came in pleading guilty and not consulting an attorney.

Earlier this week, Craig’s office acknowledged an item from his latest campaign finance report – that he paid prominent criminal defense attorney Billy Martin and public relations expert Judy Smith $37,350 on July 9 for “p.r. legal fees,” using his campaign funds. Craig’s spokesman said Craig hired the two in February because of concerns over an investigation by the Idaho Statesman newspaper into his sexual orientation.

Martin and Smith are now representing Craig in his criminal case in Minnesota.

But Craig’s spokesman, Dan Whiting, said Craig never told Martin or Smith about his arrest or guilty plea until the news broke, even though he was paying them to represent him at the time.