Federal prosecutors say that a request for a trial delay by Ruffin Poole was based on "three faulty premises" and that the trial should take place in April or May - not August, as Poole has sought.
The trial of Poole, a longtime aide to former Gov. Mike Easley, is set for late April, but he filed paperwork last week seeking the delay.
The prosecutors handling the case, John Bruce and Dennis Duffy, say in a new court filing that they want a trial soon. They also indicate they want to make decisions quickly in the wide-ranging probe that surrounds Easley, a Democrat whose two terms as governor ended in January 2009.
The prosecutors are asking a judge to ensure that any trial of Poole is finished by June 4.
"It is in the public interest to conclude the prosecution of this defendant and the broader investigation as soon as practicable," they wrote in the filing.
They said in the court filing that the charges against Poole arose from their broader investigation.
Poole is accused of 51 corruption charges related to allegations he invested in coastal real estate deals and took action to help the projects while he was a senior aide to the governor.
An attorney for Poole, in a filing last week, sought a delay by noting that the government has been preparing its case for about one year; that the volume of material gathered by the government requires extra time for Poole to prepare; and that Poole is outmanned by the government and deserves extra time.
A judge will consider the arguments and finalize the trial date. The prosecutors said:
Any suggestion they have been investigating Poole for a year is "misleading."
They say the case against Poole came together in August and September as it developed out of the larger probe surrounding Easley. They say grand jury transcripts and other documents provided to Poole show that to be the case.
Poole's defense team has been reviewing his criminal exposure since at least September and so has had ample time to prepare.
They say a former FBI agent working for Poole began taking statements of potential trial witnesses in September, including in at least two cases interviewing witnesses before the federal government located the people.
They also point out that Poole avoided testifying at the State Board of Elections hearing in October, with Poole's lawyer involved in managing his potential criminal exposure. In December, Poole invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a resumption of the elections hearing.
Poole's lawyer has "the advantage of the defendant's knowledge of how he arranged his financial dealings" and that knowledge should help him focus quickly on the most relevant records in mounting a defense.
They note that Poole's lawyer, Joseph Zeszotarski, works for a major firm, Poyner Spruill, that touts its expertise, technological skills and other abilities on its Web site.
The prosecutors also note that some charges against Poole deal with honest services fraud, an area of the law under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. But they say any action by the Supreme Court on that area is irrelevant because the evidence for those charges against Poole also relates to the other charges against Poole.
