PORTLAND — Attorneys for a Lewiston couple that owns the city’s first halal market and were convicted last year of welfare fraud argued before the state’s highest court Wednesday that they should be given a new trial.
Roda O. Abdi and Ali-Nassir H. Ahmed were convicted in Androscoggin County Superior Court in Auburn of theft by deception of federal housing-assistance benefits at a joint, jury-waived trial.
The couple was sentenced to a total of 19 months in jail for bilking the federal government out of more than $46,000 in housing subsidies.
Abdi was sentenced to four years in prison with all but 10 months suspended; Ahmed received four years with all but nine months suspended. Both are to spend three years on probation once they’ve served their time in jail.
Their sentences were stayed pending the outcome of their appeals to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which heard oral arguments Wednesday afternoon.
Attorney Peter Rodway, who represented Ahmed at the trial, argued before the court’s six justices that Active-Retired Justice Robert Clifford, who presided over the couple’s bench trial, erred when he allowed into evidence certain business forms that contained the couple’s financial information. The forms had been prepared by a property management company and were used by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development as well as state authorities to determine the couple’s eligibility for housing assistance or so-called “Section 8” housing.
Rodway argued that the forms didn’t qualify under a rule exception that allows business records at trial that would otherwise be considered hearsay. He argued that Clifford shouldn’t have allowed those records to be presented at trial because prosecutors didn’t provide sufficient foundation for their admission.
Attorney Bruce Merrill, who represented Abdi at trial, told members of the high court that information on the forms was missing and that signatures didn’t match up, making them untrustworthy to be admitted into evidence at trial.
Assistant Attorney General Leanne Robbin countered that a representative from the agency that oversaw the forms testified at trial to trustworthiness and reliability of the forms and the information they contained.
Justice Donald Alexander jumped in with a question before any of the attorneys spoke.
Addressing Rodway, Alexander said that the couple had applied for the housing assistance while running a store that had significant income.
“It seems to me that’s enough right there to show how much was illegally, by deception, taken and that your clients made false statements by their own sworn admission.”
Alexander asked, “Do we need to discuss the business records exception?”
“Perhaps not,” Rodway said.
“Then what are we here for?” Alexander asked.
“How do we know that they made the statements, is the problem that we have,” Rodway said. That was never explored during cross-examination at trial, he said.
“How do we know that they sat in that room and signed those forms?” Rodway said. “How do we know that they provided the information in those forms?”
“So they got Section 8 housing without applying for it? Is that what you’re telling me?” Alexander asked.
“Your position is that there is no testimony in the record that demonstrates that this is, in fact, your client’s statement,” Chief Justice Leigh I. Saufley said.
Rodway agreed.
Merrill said his client and Ahmed were open about their assets and hadn’t tried to hide their wealth.
He said they can’t be convicted of having deceived federal authorities about their need for housing assistance because it wasn’t proved they had signed the forms.
“Well, how did they get into Section 8 housing then?” Alexander asked. “They’re making huge amounts of money. They’re living in Section 8 housing. They must have deceived someone to get there.”
Merrill said the housing assistance process started before Abdi had opened the market for business.
Clifford “committed no error in admitting the housing assistance applications” of the couple, Robbin told the court.
The state’s witness at trial was a supervisor at a real estate agency that handled applications for the owner of the building where the couple had applied for housing assistance to live. The witness oversaw the application process and five employees in that office who personally took the information from Abdi and Ahmed, Robbin said. All of the applications and renewals, except one in 2003, were signed by the couple, she said.
Responding to a question by Justice Ellen Gorman, Robbin said neither of the defendants challenged that the signatures on the applications and renewals belonged to them.
In response to Merrill’s argument that Abdi and Ahmed hadn’t hidden their worth from others in Lewiston, Robbin said, “Certainly, there was overwhelming evidence that these defendants were lying to this entity, even if there were other entities that they were not lying to.”
A decision isn’t expected until spring.
cwilliams@sunjournal.com
Send questions/comments to the editors.
