CLEVELAND, Ohio – Ben Suarez will be sentenced as planned Nov. 14 after a federal judge denied the North Canton direct-marketing entrepreneur's request to throw out his conviction for witness-tampering, or to grant him a new trial.

A federal jury in June acquitted Suarez, 72, on all charges except witness-tampering at the conclusion of a month-long trial that centered on a campaign financing scheme.



U.S. District Judge Patricia Anne Gaughan issued a 25-page opinion late Wednesday in which she rejected Suarez's defense team's arguments that she gave the jury faulty instructions and that his conviction amounted to double jeopardy.

The judge previously denied the defense's request for a continuance of the sentencing and a hearing in which to present its arguments.

Witness tampering is an element of obstruction of justice, which carries a statutory maximum of up to 20 years in prison. Federal sentencing guidelines however, will likely carry much less prison time.

The primary case against Suarez involved a plan to secretly provide $200,000 in campaign contributions to U.S. Rep. Jim Renacci and Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel in 2011 and 2012.

Suarez was seeking political clout to assist his battle against an expensive consumer fraud lawsuit he was waging in California. His chief financial officer, Michael Giorgio, raised the money from Suarez family members and employees, and reimbursed them with money from his company, Suarez Corporation Industries.

Giorgio, 62, testified that he knew the campaign financing scheme was "clearly illegal."



Two weeks prior to trial, Giorgio pleaded guilty to seven counts of campaign finance and obstruction of justice charges, striking a plea bargain with prosecutors in which he agreed to testify against Suarez.

Last month, however, Giorgio asked Gaughan to allow him to withdraw his guilty pleas. She has not yet decided whether to allow his change of heart.

The single charge for which Suarez was convicted involved a letter he wrote to his company controller of 36 years, Barbara Housos, in which he sought to help her avoid testifying to a grand jury by signing an affidavit. He warned her to keep their plans a secret, and to not admit any wrongdoing.

Housos correctly predicted that the letter and instructions would expose Suarez to criminal charges, according to her testimony.

Housos is suffering from colon cancer and testified via a video recording rather than appear in court.

Suarez's lawyers challenged the conviction in their motion for acquittal, arguing that the witness-tampering charge was duplicitous because it contained three separate counts. The jury did not reveal which of the three offenses formed the basis for the verdict.

Gaughan polled the panel after its verdict, and learned that the 12 jurors agreed on one or more of the charges contained in the count. The defense failed to raise the double jeopardy issue at the time, the judge noted in her opinion.

The Suarez defense team also said Gaughan erred when she instructed the jury that only one criminal act was required for a conviction. And they maintained her jury instructions were flawed.

In denying the challenges, Gaughan noted that she twice asked the defense lawyers if they had any objections at the conclusion of her charge to the jury, and the defense said they had none.

The federal probation department will establish the sentencing guidelines, but it will be up to Gaughan to determine Suarez's punishment.

Suarez Corp. Industries was acquitted on all nine charges of campaign finance violations, causing false statements to be made to federal elections officials, and obstruction of justice.