Body
Jurors in Akron, Ohio, deadlocked in the corruption trial of former FirstEnergy Corp. executives Chuck Jones and Michael Dowling, setting up the possibility of a mistrial after months of testimony tied to a bribery investigation. The impasse came after more than eight days of deliberations following a six-week trial, according to testimony and statements reported by the Associated Press.
The case proceeded in Summit County Common Pleas Court before Judge Susan Baker Ross, who sent jurors back for further consideration after they previously said they could not agree. On Tuesday, the judge announced the declaration of an impasse after the jury remained stuck, and she said she would allow lawyers to confer with jurors if desired.
Baker Ross also said she would meet with attorneys to discuss next steps and decide later whether to declare a mistrial. “Let me kind of regroup here,” she said, according to the AP report.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said the state would pursue further legal action. In a video statement, Yost said, “The state of Ohio can and will retry these defendants. Justice needs to be done.”
Defense attorneys indicated they planned to seek an additional remedy. John McCaffrey, one of the lawyers representing Dowling, said the defense would be “filing a motion for judgement of acquittal.”
The deadlock leaves Jones and Dowling in legal limbo as prosecutors point to prior developments in the broader FirstEnergy case. Prosecutors previously secured an admission from FirstEnergy that it underwrote the bribery scheme, and former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder was sentenced to 20 years in prison for orchestrating it, the report said.
The alleged scheme included Householder electing allies, securing legislative power, passing a nuclear bailout bill described as $1 billion, and then mounting a dirty-tricks campaign to defend it from a citizen referendum. In the trial against Jones and Dowling, prosecutors said the case was more nuanced and centered on payments before the recipient was fully positioned to exert influence.
Prosecutors argued that Jones and Dowling bribed Public Utilities Commission of Ohio chair-to-be Sam Randazzo for legislative and regulatory favors, including his work championing House Bill 6, a proposed $1 billion bailout for two aging FirstEnergy-affiliated nuclear plants. The report said prosecutors also alleged the defendants paid $4.3 million as part of that scheme.
The defense disputed the bribery characterization, portraying Randazzo as responsible for any misuse of FirstEnergy funds. Attorneys said Randazzo was “a thief” and “a con man” and argued that the $4.3 million payment represented an above-board legal settlement for services Randazzo provided to the Akron-based power company, rather than a bribe.
Randazzo was initially charged alongside Jones and Dowling but died by suicide after pleading not guilty. In court Tuesday, Jones’ attorney Carole Rendon told the judge that a mistrial should be declared due to insufficient evidence of bribery, the central charge against her client.
During the six-week trial, one of the highest-profile witnesses was U.S. Sen. Jon Husted, a former Ohio lieutenant governor. Husted confirmed to jurors that he was present at a key Dec. 18, 2018, dinner that included Husted, then-Gov.-elect Mike DeWine, Jones, Dowling and Josh Rubin, described in the report as an advisor to DeWine’s campaign and a lobbyist for FirstEnergy.
The report said Rubin provided advice to the executives that day on how to lobby DeWine so DeWine would favor the company’s preferences for Randazzo to chair the PUCO, citing a text in the criminal complaint. The account also said Rubin cautioned the executives not to mention to DeWine that they would meet Randazzo at his residence after the dinner.
The AP report described follow-up texts involving Randazzo and the executives, including Randazzo texting Dowling figures for 2019 through 2024—“Total 4,333,333”—and Dowling replying “Got it, Sam,” along with a comment about hospitality. The report said Jones later texted Randazzo that they would get the matter handled and paid in full, and Randazzo responded about structuring invoices.
As prosecutors and defense attorneys consider their next moves, the jury’s inability to reach agreement means the trial’s outcome will likely depend on decisions that come after Tuesday’s impasse, including whether the court declares a mistrial and whether Ohio proceeds with retrying the case.