Malone comes to defense of friend claiming vindictive prosecution

The good news for Donald Davidson is that he has an ally in his intriguing claim of vindictive prosecution in a federal case stemming from the Galardi public corruption investigation.

Davidson's ally is a consummate insider. If anyone knows the dirty details of the FBI's case, it's this guy.

In his declaration in U.S. District Court supporting Davidson's motion to unseal a potentially helpful grand jury transcript, he appears willing to risk a future felony charge to stand up for the defendant, who is taking a pounding from Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Schiess.

What's the bad news?

Donald Davidson's defender is Lance Malone.

Don't laugh.

True, Malone carries a certain amount of baggage in this case. All right, Nepalese Sherpas can't carry as much baggage as Malone carries in this case.

But Malone, who was sentenced to six years in prison for his conviction as Michael Galardi's bagman in the San Diego and Las Vegas ends of the G-sting investigation, also holds information that could not only help Davidson's case, but shed light on other suspicious events yet to be charged.

At the very least, his perspective could arguably bolster Davidson attorney Dominic Gentile's rarely leveled allegation that Schiess, in his zeal to charge the bad guys, let his emotions get the better of him and has vindictively overcharged the defendant.

Gentile, who also was Malone's attorney, has filed a weighty motion to dismiss on a range of arguments. One argument that's sure to sting is Gentile's contention that Davidson was indicted a second time only after he testified on Malone's behalf at the corrupt ex-cop and county commissioner's sentencing.

What exactly is Malone, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Davidson case, saying?

For starters, that neither he nor Davidson participated in a bribery scheme involving the Triple Five Development Corp. and a proposed Spring Valley casino project. That isn't surprising -- only a dope with Malone's penitentiary status would admit taking yet another bribe. But what is interesting is the manner in which he proposes to assist Davidson. Malone wants part of the transcript from his Feb. 26 appearance before a federal grand jury unsealed for the purposes of benefiting the vindictive prosecution argument.

It's not an empty gesture from a guy with nothing to lose. Malone surely knows the U.S. attorney's office will gladly move to indict him on further felony charges if it gets an opportunity. I get the feeling Schiess would roast Malone like a pig on a spit if given the opportunity.

"I am concerned and afraid that if my testimony varies from my grand jury testimony, Assistant United States Attorney Schiess might claim that I lied either at trial or at the grand jury and bring additional charges against me," Malone's declaration states. "This fear is exacerbated because he brought new charges against Donald M. Davidson after his testimony in my behalf at my sentencing hearing. I do not want to be prosecuted again."

But can Malone get away with waiving only part of his rights?

Perhaps, but let's hope not.

For lowly taxpayers who are tired of public corruption in Clark County, here is where Malone potentially becomes an accidental ally of every citizen in this community.

From the declaration: "I was also asked questions by Assistant United States Attorney Schiess before the grand jury that did not involve anything to do with Donald M. Davidson or Triple Five Development Corporation or Michael McDonald in any way, but relate to other persons. I am concerned about those matters becoming public and do not waive any rights that I may have to secrecy as to them."

"Other persons?"

What other persons are those, Lance?

Business owners? Casino licensees? Big-name developers? Judges? Other elected officials?

Malone's entire grand jury transcript should be unsealed. There's no good excuse to play coy at this point.

That transcript might give us insight into the murky machinations that take place in commission offices, shadowy backrooms and, as we've already learned, at least one notorious topless cabaret.

If it helps illustrate Davidson's legal argument, justice is not diminished -- and Davidson will remain in trouble. If it gives us a snapshot of our true political underbelly, that's good news for all of us.

Will the G-sting bagman turn out to be our accidental ally?

John L. Smith's column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0295.