| | Associated Press
MINNEAPOLIS -- An attorney who acted as an adviser to Jan
Gangelhoff early in the investigation of academic fraud in the
University of Minnesota men's athletics program says Gangelhoff is
a victim of corruption by her superiors.
Gangelhoff, a former office manager for the university's
athletic academic counseling unit, disclosed last year that she had
completed more than 400 pieces of coursework for Gopher basketball
players.
Gangelhoff, who was charged Friday with one federal count of
fraud, is expected to plead guilty and cooperate with federal
prosecutors by testifying against former basketball coach Clem
Haskins and Alonzo Newby, former academic counselor for the team.
She's not expected to receive any prison time.
The case has been assigned to Minnesota Chief U.S. District
Judge Paul Magnuson. Gangelhoff is scheduled to make her first
court appearance Sept. 25 in St. Paul.
Attorney Larry Leventhal noted that Gangelhoff came forward with
information about the academic misconduct.
"Even though what she did was not proper (in writing the
papers), in the scheme of things, prosecutors with prosecutorial
discretion should have appreciated her information and not treated
her as a criminal," Leventhal said.
Even if Gangelhoff doesn't go to prison, a felony conviction
will leave a negative mark on her record, making it more difficult
for her to be employed and can affect her right to vote or hold
office, Leventhal said.
In the past year, he said, "she has been on a continuous hot
seat," testifying in frequent depositions, spending her own money
to cover costs in the case. "I think she has suffered enough,"
Leventhal said.
Others might be reluctant to testify because she was charged, he
said.
"I think it would dissuade individuals who have some knowledge
of coming forward and sharing the knowledge for fear they might be
singled out later," he said.
That view is shared by Peter Erlinder, a law professor at the
William Mitchell College of Law and past president of the National
Lawyers Guild.
"A reasonable person would have to conclude that they should
have to think twice before revealing information about activities
they may be involved in, even if it is quite minor," Erlinder
said.
"In principle, it is a little troubling when someone who is so
forthright ends up with a conviction, but this is a federal case,
and federal prosecutors like to get a conviction," said Richard
Oakes, a law professor at Hamline University and former dean of its
Law School.
Oakes said prosecutors might be thinking a jury would find her
testimony more believable if she is charged.
"If they give her a complete walk it may be described as
purchased testimony, meaning she got away with no charges at all in
return for testimony," he said.
"Prosecutors investigating white-collar crime face this issue
all the time," said Andrew Luger, the former assistant U.S.
attorney in Minneapolis.
"When the whistleblower is involved in the wrongdoing, the
prosecutors face a difficult choice," Luger said. "Do they let a
wrongdoer go free simply because they reported the wrongdoing, or
do they give the whistleblower a break in sentencing but not a
complete pass on criminal liability?"
A jury "often wants everyone involved to take responsibility.
It can help the government's case," he said. However, he agreed
that there is a risk others will refuse to talk.
| |
ALSO SEE
Report: Feds target Haskins, ex-counselor in Minnesota probe
|
