ST. LOUIS–Days before three former members of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen are due to be sentenced in a federal courtroom for their roles in a public corruption case that rocked city government this summer, the government has laid out its case to support “significant” time in prison.

What You Need To Know

  • The now-former lawmakers were charged in federal court in June
  • Federal guidelines call for prison sentences of up to 37 months for Boyd, and 46 for Reed and Collins-Muhammad
  • Sentencing is scheduled for Tuesday, Dec. 6

In a Tuesday court filing, prosecutors also showed photographic evidence demonstrating when Lewis Reed, then President of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, and fellow Aldermen Jeffrey Boyd and John Collins-Muhammad, accepted cash bribes in exchange for their help to approve tax abatements.

Muhammad resigned his office prior to being charged in June, while Reed and Boyd followed soon after their first appearance in court. Each later entered guilty pleas.

Federal sentencing guidelines call for Reed and Collins-Muhammad to face between 37 and 46 months in prison. Boyd, who also admitted to an unrelated charge of insurance fraud, would face between 30 and 37 months under those guidelines.

“It is the position of the United States that anything less would ignore the extent of these Defendants’ criminal conduct and the substantial harm Defendants’ conduct caused to the public,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Hal Goldsmith wrote in the filing. “There are real victims in this case; the citizens of St. Louis who make their homes here or who operate their businesses here, whose taxes paid the salaries of these Defendants, who follow the rules and who have every right to expect their elected officials to follow those same rules, and whose trust in our system of government has been diminished by the criminal acts of these Defendants.”

“These Defendants placed their own personal interests and political ambitions above all else, and engaged in a myriad of classic illegal “pay to play” schemes in order to fill their own pockets with ill-gotten cash, what is commonly referred to as “walking around money.” Defendants’ criminal acts were for their own personal gain, and in clear contravention of the best interests of the public they were elected to serve,” Goldsmith wrote. 

Collins-Muhammad is asking District Court Judge Stephen Clark for a sentence of five years probation, while Reed is asking for probation, a fine and in-home detention, along with community service. 

“Serving the people was my “dream job” and I let personal greed come in the way of that. One of my biggest fears growing up was ending up in jail as so many around me had. I thought by becoming an activist I would avoid all that. Now I may end up there anyway. That fact sticks with me,” Collins-Muhammad wrote in a letter to Clark filed Tuesday.

“Over these past few months, I have been asking myself “How could I have done this?” “How could I be so stupid?” At the time I felt that promoting the business and helping it get established was for the best, and if I could make a small profit for supporting a project I would have supported anyway why not? Terrible decision that I will live with forever.”

“I have done good works and simply ask you consider the entirety of my life and my tenure and not just my involvement with “Project A” and John Doe. I am sorry and am filled with guilt and self-accusation.”

In an 11-page brief, Collins-Muhammad, through counsel, said that he would have supported the tax abatement proposals if they were presented without bribery, and that while he accepted the money, he never sought it out. The money, which wasn’t reported in campaign finance or tax filings, went to pay bills and to support people in his ward, the filing said. 

The brief contends that Collins-Muhammad’s punishment began when he resigned from office.

“The public shaming is punishment. His children will forever associate their father with his failure. Thanks to the internet, when they Google their father, they will see countless articles about his misdeeds, and those articles will last in perpetuity. This is punishment." 

“Reed has already suffered several significant punishments for his offense-related choices. He has lost his job of 15 years, the pension he earned through more than 20 years of productive public service, and the good reputation he developed through his devoted work as a public servant. What’s more, he’ll have to make his life over at the age of 62. These several consequences may constitute detriments typical to offenses like Reed’s. But they do not, for that reason, represent punishments any less,” his legal team said in its filing.

Boyd did not submit letters or a filing asking for a specific sentence, but has asked the court to allow eight witnesses to testify on his behalf Tuesday. Clark gave Boyd until Friday Dec. 2 to explain why the witnesses should be allowed and for a summary of their proposed testimony.

The government urged Clark not to see the former lawmakers’ resignations as a form of punishment.

“This Court should hold these Defendants to a higher standard of conduct precisely because of their public positions. If the Court were to consider these collateral consequences in framing more lenient sentences, it would be tantamount to favoring criminals with privileged backgrounds.”