Dec. 13, 2000

Justice Department prosecutors argue Tom Welch and Dave Johnson worked to "buy" the votes of members of the International Olympic Committee, and they say they can prove the pair broke the law in doing that.

That's according to the latest court papers filed by federal prosecutors.

News Specialist John Daley has been following the case and has another report.

A month ago defense lawyers filed these motions, asking a judge to dismiss the charges against the pair, basically arguing that prosecutors stretched the law to fit their case.

Today, Justice Department prosecutors fired back with a 65 page response, arguing Welch and Johnson made an "unmistakable effort to buy the IOC members votes."

It's a new wrinkle in Utah's most closely watched legal battle.

Tom Welch and Dave Johnson have pleaded not guilty in the scandal over whether they bribed to win the 2002 Olympics for Salt Lake.

But prosecutors from the Justice Department's Fraud Division say they can prove it. In response to defense motions to dismiss, prosecutors use their strongest language yet, saying Welch and Johnson orchestrated a scheme to pay IOC members for their votes, that $320-thousand in cash and gifts were given to one IOC member--Jean-Claude Ganga of Congo. And that there is no good explantion for a million dollars in payments to IOC members.

Prosecutors call it an "unmistakable effort to 'buy' the IOC members' votes: what any layman would understand as attempted bribery."

Paul Cassell/University of Utah Law Professor: "BASICALLY WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD LIKE A JUDGE TO DO IS AGREE THAT IT'S A MATTER TO BE DECIDED BY A JURY AND NOT THROWN OUT AT THIS JUNCTURE."

Prosecutors deny they're bending law to fit the case, saying, "The charges are appropriate applications of federal criminal statues."

The defense team had high hopes for a similar Louisiana fraud case, called U.S. versus Cleveland, which was recently dismissed by the Supreme Court.

They believe it could explode the proseuction's theory that Welch and Johnson deprived trustees of the "control" of the bid committee.

Prosecutors brush aside that notion, devoting barely a page to Cleveland, saying "The defendant's fraud deprived the committee of cash and other tangible assets, not merely a "right of control" how assets might be used."

Of course all of this will come before a judge who'll decide whether or not to dismiss any of the 15 counts against the pair.

It would appear to be a longshot, but the defense team seems confident. Expect a hearing within the next few weeks.