Another hurdle is overcome in the legal process, which should eventually result in a trial for Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA)

A federal judge rejected Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) request to suppress evidence gathered during an FBI search of his Louisiana home in 2005.

Judge T.S. Ellis III determined that FBI agents did not abuse Jefferson’s rights during the raid because he was not arrested or held in custody. Jefferson could have terminated the interview he had with the agents at any time and could have left the house immediately when the agents started searching his home, according to the judge.

There are potentially a lot of trials in store for the Jefferson family: 

U.S. Attorney Jim Letten announced this afternoon that 4th District Assessor Betty Jefferson, an elder sister of U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, has been indicted on a host of fraud-related charges by a federal grand jury. Also indicted were Jefferson's daughter, Angela Coleman, and her brother, the previously indicted Mose Jefferson.

The charges are the culmination of a probe into charities run by members of the Jefferson family and their allies. In a rare move, the FBI announced it was investigating the nonprofits after a 2006 Times-Picayune story revealed apparent self-dealing at them.

The newspaper's report noted that former City Councilwoman and state Rep. Renee Gill Pratt, a protege of the congressman, and former state Rep. Jalila Jefferson-Bullock, one of his five daughters, had steered millions of dollars over the course of a decade or so to three charities associated with the family: Care Unlimited, Orleans Metropolitan Housing and Central City Adult Education.

Looks like the trial of Rep. William Jefferson could proceed after all:

A federal judge has rejected arguments by attorneys for Rep. William Jefferson seeking dismissal of charges that the New Orleans Democrat solicited and received bribes to promote business projects in Western Africa.

Jefferson's lawyers had argued that the government did not allege that Jefferson had performed any "official acts" related to the alleged bribes -- making the accusations null and void.

But U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III said that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that bribery charges can be brought even if the acts don't fit into the "responsibilities explicitly assigned by law."

He said it will be up to a jury to determine whether the actions alleged by the government relate to the performance of official duties or "settled customary duty or practice" and relates to a government decision or action."

"Whether or not the government is able to prove each of these elements ... is a question properly addressed at trial, not on a motion to dismiss an indictment," Judge Ellis wrote.

Another possible delay in the upcoming trial of Rep. William Jefferson.  He is still trying for a change of venue: 

Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) lawyers have asked a federal judge to reconsider a ruling denying a change of venue for his corruption trial.

The attorneys want to make their case for the venue transfer on June 13 before Virginia District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III. They argue that the case should be tried in Washington, D.C., because there likely will be fewer black jurors where the case is located now in Alexandria, Va. to evaluate the charges against Jefferson, who is black.

Moreover, the lawyers contend, most of the alleged activities took place in Washington, D.C., not Northern Virginia.

“The center of gravity of the case as a whole is the District of Columbia, not the Eastern District of Virginia,” they wrote in the motion.

Major decision in from the U.S. Supreme Court today -- a decision not to review the appeal of the U.S. Department of Justice stemming from the case of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). When the Court of Appeals ruled in Jefferson's favor, CREW stated it was "a decision devastating to the investigation and prosecution of congressional corruption." With today's action, the devastating decision stands:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dealt the Justice Department a major blow in its case against Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) in a decision that could make it more difficult for the government to investigate other members of Congress.

The Supreme Court denied a Justice Department appeal of a lower court ruling that aspects of the FBI raid on Jefferson’s Rayburn office violated the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause.

Today, according to The Politico, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are deciding whether they will hear the an appeal in the case of the raid on the office of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA).   The issue is the constitutionality of the FBI raid on the congressional office of Mr. Jefferson.  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled the raid was unconstitutional.  CREW called that decision "devastating to the investigation and prosecution of congressional corruption."  We could know next week if the Supreme Court will hear the case:

The Supreme Court will consider this Friday whether to take up a Justice Department request to overturn an appeals court ruling finding the May 2006 raid on Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) unconstitutional.

An announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision on whether it will take up the case could come as early as next Monday, although there is no way of actually predicting what the high court will do.

The Justice Department’s request, and a counter-motion by Jefferson’s legal team arguing against Supreme Court intervention, are scheduled to be “distributed for conference” among the justices this Friday. The Supreme Court could place the case on the “Orders List” released the following Monday, or or add the case to its schedule on a future list.

The Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to allow searches of congressional offices, arguing that leaving the August 2007 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - which found the FBI search an unconstitutional violation of Jefferson's privileges under the Speech or Debate Clause - is hampering ongoing criminal investigations of lawmakers.

Jefferson, who is being supported by a bipartisan group of senior House leadership aides, argues that the appeals court ruling was correct. Under the Speech or Debate Clause, legal action cannot be taken against lawmakers and staffers for legislative activities. Jefferson's legal team successfully argued on the appeals level that the FBI search of his office was unconstitutional.

At issue is the Constitution's speech and debate clause.  Rep. Jefferson thinks it applies to the testimony of his staff at the grand jury.  The judge ruled against him, hence the appeal, which will delay the start of the criminal trial:

U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, on Wednesday afternoon appealed a court ruling in his public corruption case, a move that is sure to once again put off the twice-delayed trial.

Jefferson is challenging the refusal by U.S. Judge T.S. Ellis III to dismiss numerous bribery-related charges because the Grand Jury that indicted him last June, he contends, heard tainted testimony about his legislative activities in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Jefferson 's trial, originally scheduled for Jan. 16, was slated to open Feb. 25. But proceedings will be put on hold while a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals considers Jefferson's arguments, which could take months, legal experts say. Whoever loses at the appellate court is likely to take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, further delaying the much-anticipated trial of the nine-term congressman.

Lawyers for Rep. William Jefferson tried to have the charges against him dismissed claiming the grand jury testimony of the congressman's staff violated the Constitution's speech and debate clause.  The federal district court judge hearing the case did not accept that argument:

The attorneys for Jefferson, who did not appear at the Wednesday hearing, said that testifying about such legislative matters violated the "Speech or Debate" clause of the Constitution meant to shield the law-making process from interference by the executive branch. Attorney Gloria Solomon argued that the government's case, which alleges that Jefferson took nearly $400,000 in bribes to promote companies in Africa, was predicated on the tainted grand jury testimony.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III disagreed. In a ruling from the bench, he said that the staffers' testimony was constitutionally benign and that it only illuminated the source of Jefferson's influence overseas.

"That's why people bribe congressmen, because they have influence," Ellis said.

He said the testimony was not "relevant to the charges" and was only referenced in passing in the June 2007 indictment against Jefferson. Ellis called the defense argument, "wildly far-fetched and simply not plausible."

Today, CREW sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner asking that the House leaders start cooperating with law enforcement authorities pursuing legitimate criminal investigations involving members of Congress.  The letter can be found here.

Leaders of the House have been improperly shielding members of Congress – including former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) and Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) -- from criminal investigation and prosecution through an expansive and aggressive interpretation of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.

Members of Congress, like all other citizens, can hire attorneys to ensure that their constitutional rights are protected; this is not, however, the job of the House general counsel, hired at taxpayer expense.

A key excerpt from CREW's letter to Pelosi and Boehner:

Members of Congress are not above the law, but the House's aggressive use of the Speech and Debate Clause to impede law enforcement authorities from investigating members' potentially illegal activities is unseemly.

Unseemly, indeed. 

Rep. William Jefferson's trial starts next month. The Hill reports that six Hill staffers have been subpoenaed to testify in that trial:

The Department of Justice has subpoenaed six current and former House aides to testify in next month’s trial of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), who faces a wide array of public corruption and bribery charges, according to a knowledgeable source.

The current House aides include Paul Arcangeli, a professional staffer on the House Armed Services Committee, and Roberta Hopkins and Stephanie Butler, who work in Jefferson’s office. In addition, the DoJ has subpoenaed three former employees of Jefferson, although the names of those individuals have not been specified, the source said.

The House general counsel’s office is representing all six staffers in the matter.