Wilkerson's lawyers: She's a thief with a heart of gold and no worse than Tommy Finneran

Ex-Sen. Dianne Wilkerson's lawyers yesterday submitted a brief to a judge considering what to do with her that makes two basic arguments: While she screwed up, her intentions were good, and what she did wasn't all that worse than what Tom Finneran did, and he didn't get any jail time.

The brief, submitted to US District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock attempts to counter arguments by federal prosecutors that Wilkerson needs to be punished hard, not just for the liquor-license sting that caught her (and ex-City Councilor Chuck Turner) but for lots of other stuff, such as using secret donations from developers to fund her last campaign. Woodlock is scheduled to sentence Wilkerson, who pleaded guilty to corruption charges, tomorrow.

Because some of her intentions were good, her mindset was not that of a hardened criminal who should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, they argue. As just one example, her lawyers point to her discussions with businessman-turned-informant Ron Wilburn, who provided her with FBI cash for a liquor license:

It is not disputable that when Wilburn brought the license issue to her attention, she was truly outraged by the failure to award a single one (out of sixty!) to anyone in the district – her district – to which they were targeted. As the Mayor noted, she was justifiably put out and the path she then took was completely consistent with everything she had done in the past. Similarly, there are many references in the recorded conversations to her consistent support for – and insistence upon – development in her community which would benefit the residents of that community.

And while "indisputably, the defendant is guilty of a very serious set of offenses," Woodlock should consider how other politicians have been treated by federal courts, the lawyers argue:

The last Massachusetts Speaker of the House pled guilty to a very serious federal crime - lying under oath to three federal judges - and received no prison time at all. Another Massachusetts public official who was convicted of a similar offence to the one here - but whose conduct was far more calculated, and who only belatedly accepted responsibility - received a sentence of slightly more than half the minimum guideline sentence. Nationally, there have been similar results. In May of this year, for example, the Majority Leader of the New York State Senate was sentenced for an honest services fraud scheme in which, according to the allegations of the counts of conviction, he sought out consulting business from firms which had business before the legislature and he received very substantial amounts of money, far in excess of the value of work he performed. He did not plead guilty and did not accept any responsibility; indeed the sentencing judge observed that "I didn't hear one word of contrition." Still he received a sentence, two years, which was less than one-fourth of his guideline range.

Complete argument.