Jury finds Gasaway, Long guilty

CLARKSVILLE, Tenn. – After nearly 15 hours of deliberation Monday and Tuesday, jurors in the Carrie Gasaway/Fletcher Long extortion trial returned a verdict of guilty.

The jury notified court officers at 3:10 p.m. Tuesday that they had reached verdict for both attorneys after a seven-day trial at the Montgomery County Courts Center.

Long said after the verdict that he honors the jury’s decision, and he is considering changing his profession because it is “too stressful.”

“God has a plan for me, but it’s not to practice law,” he said. “... I think I have some marketable skills.”

Gasaway and Long, two well-known local attorneys, were convicted of trying to extort $50,000 from a client, Michelle Langlois, who hired them to attend the reading of her father’s will in October 2010. The crime is a Class D felony with a sentencing range of two to 12 years with a maximum fine of $5,000.

Carrie Gasaway is the wife of Montgomery County Circuit Judge John Gasaway.

Long has been involved as a defense counsel in two high-profile Middle Tennessee criminal cases. As recently as April, Long was representing Jason Autry, a co-defendant in the kidnapping and slaying of Holly Bobo, a notorious West Tennessee crime.

Long also represented one of four former Vanderbilt University football players accused of raping an unconscious female student in 2013. Long argued at trial in January that his client Brandon Vandenburg did not participate in the rape and was not responsible, but a jury returned a guilty verdict.

In the local trial, the jury did not affix a fine to the convictions, and Judge Paul Summers, who was brought in from another district to hear the case, said a sentencing date will be set within the next 45 days.

Langlois and other family members were emotional as the verdict was handed down.

“It’s been a long road,” she said. “I’ll try to move forward now. I’ll finally get to grieve for my father. It’s been almost five years since his death.”

Long’s attorney Mark Olson, who was essentially the lead counsel for the defense team, said he was “obviously disappointed” with the verdict.

“We look forward to the appealing the decision,” he said. “The court’s last instructions to the jury were erroneous, and I think that really hurt us.”

He said Summers’ answers to two questions from the jury on Tuesday introduced facts into the case that did not pertain to elements of the crime of extortion.

District Attorney Jason Lawson said prosecutors were pleased with the guilty verdict, and he was “glad it got justice for Mrs. Langlois.”

He added that the jury had many pieces of evidence to consider, and he praised their efforts.

The case

During the trial, Langlois testified she hired Long and Gasaway to attend the reading of her father’s will, agreeing only to pay their firm $800. She said afterward Gasaway pressured her to sign a new contract, telling Langlois because of the complexity of the estate, she needed their help to get her inheritance and her father’s house that her step mother was living in.

Langlois opted for a contract paying Gasaway, Long and Associates a $50,000 flat fee for all work involved, and she gave them a $50,000 personal check to hold until she could cash in some of her father’s stocks. Several months passed before Langlois got money from the stocks, and the attorneys had been contacting her about when they would receive their money, threatening multiple times to have her arrested if she did not pay them.

According to testimony, Langlois said when the money was available, she got a certified check for $50,000, of which she faxed a copy to the law office to show she intended to pay them and set up a meeting with Long to deliver it, but canceled because she was sick.

In the meantime, she changed her mind about the contract with Gasaway and Long, and decided to hire another attorney. Langlois took the certified check back to the bank and deposited portions of it in separate accounts, which prevented the attorneys from cashing her personal check.

Long and Gasaway then sought a warrant for Langlois’ arrest, charging her with theft of services for the legal work the firm had done. In the narrative of the warrant, Long wrote that Langlois had given them a $50,000 “bad check” that they were unable to cash for her legal fees.

The criminal charge against Langlois was later dropped because the dispute was considered a civil matter.

Prosecutors contended that Gasaway and Long wanted the $50,000 for a $550,000 real estate deal, and they claim the attorneys took money from another client’s trust account for the 10 percent cash portion of the purchase contract. They intended to replace the money in the trust with Langlois’ $50,000, but the plan went awry when she decided to hire another attorney.

Tuesday questions

Following nearly seven hours of deliberations that began around 2:30 p.m. Monday, the jury returned at 9 a.m. Tuesday to continue its work.

Around 10:30 a.m., the jurors sent questions to Summers, essentially asking if it is legal for a business to hold a check for a customer and to give them more information about a “bad check.” The judge asked the defense and prosecution to help him craft an answer to the questions.

The first answer was a simple yes, so Summers said he would supply the language in the state statute pertaining to a post-dated check.

The defense vigorously objected to the judge supplying a legal definition for a worthless check, which is issued with insufficient funds in the account to cash it.

Olson argued that jury instructions by law, should not include anything that doesn’t apply to the charge the jury is considering. Effectively, passing a bad check is not an element of extortion, which is an attempt to gain personal property or advantage over another person by coercion.

He said the only part of the case involving a bad check was in the theft of services warrant, and nothing connected it with the extortion charge. Introducing it, he said, would likely confuse the jurors.

Prosecutors did not object and said the defendants brought the term into the case via the warrant.

On rebuttal, Olson said if the judge was to give such new instructions to the jury, he should be afforded time for more argument before the jury to introduce new information about the bad check instruction. He added if the new instructions were delivered, “it would give the jury an improper view of what was done.”

Olson said with new jury instructions, “the potential for confusion is remarkable.”

Summers took about an hour to ponder his response, and more discussion followed when he called the defense and prosecution together to let them know his intentions.

Summers said he would answer the jury questions with the definitions, saying the “bad check” referenced in the warrant “was the vehicle that stole their services” and while it is not a worthless check case, “it is part and parcel of this entire litigation.”

About an hour and a half after the judge answered the jury’s questions, they rendered their verdicts.

Aftermath

After the verdict, Lawson said the case, which included a two-year investigation before Gasaway and Long were indicted last year, was prepared in depth “to make sure it was done right.”

He added that he and the judge were brought in from other districts to avoid conflict of interests that might be present with local prosecutors and judges who know and have worked with the defendants.

“This shows that nobody is above the law,” he said.

Another attorney has since been hired to represent Vandenburg in the case, which is set for sentencing in June.

Mark Hicks, 245-0721

Multimedia Journalist

markhicks@theleafchronicle.com

Twitter: @markhicksleaf