Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Jury acquits Shields, husband

MO Lawyers Media Staff//November 8, 2007//

Jury acquits Shields, husband

MO Lawyers Media Staff//November 8, 2007//

Listen to this article

After more than 20 hours of deliberations, a federal jury on Wednesday cleared a former county executive of Jackson County and her husband of mortgage fraud.

Katheryn Shields, a former finalist for U.S. Attorney, and Philip Cardarella, a local lawyer, were accused of taking part in a scheme that involved falsely representing the price of their home to a mortgage lender.

Prosecutors said the two were involved in the conspiracy to sell their Sunset Drive home at the inflated price of $1.2 million. The home had been on the market for just under $700,000, according to court records.

The jury, which began deliberating Friday afternoon, returned not guilty verdicts on the conspiracy and wire fraud charges around 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday. Two other defendants, a mortgage broker and a closing agent, were convicted of most of the charges against them.

The couple walked out of the federal courthouse arm-in-arm following the verdicts.

Neither Shields nor Cardarella had kind words for former U.S. Attorney Bradley Schlozman, who filed the charges against them last year.

They said Schlozman, who is now a lawyer at a Wichita law firm, was politically motivated in charging the two last year. Both Shields and Cardarella are Democrats.

“I think he was sent here to do a specific thing,” Shields said. “He was sent here to indict me, and he was sent here to make sure the ACORN people got indicted just before the November (2006) election. He did his job.”

“He’s Wichita’s problem,” Cardarella added. “I think the fact that he had to essentially resign and flee from Congress says a great deal.”

Steve Bough, a Kansas City attorney, also said politics played a role in the charges. Bough is president and Cardarella is a board member of the Committee for County Progress, a Democratic reform organization in Jackson County.

“This verdict confirms what we already know,” Bough said, “that [former U.S. Attorney General] Alberto Gonzales’ Department of Justice was on a political witch hunt.”

In a statement released shortly after the verdict, U.S. Attorney John Wood said he respected the jury’s acquittal of Shields and Cardarella.

“While much of the public attention regarding this case has focused on these two defendants, for the U.S. Attorney’s Office this case was about mortgage fraud,” the statement said. “It is important to remember that the government did not seek out any particular defendants in this case.”

Both Shields and Cardarella are products of the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.

She worked as an assistant prosecutor for Jackson County after graduating before moving to private practice in 1980. From 1983 through 1987 Shields served as an assistant county counselor, practicing civil law for the county.

Shields, who also served on the Kansas City Council for seven years, was among a panel of three sent to President Bill Clinton in 1993 for the position of U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri.

Shields has not practiced law since at least 1994, when she was elected as the county executive of Jackson County. She served three terms before unsuccessfully running for mayor earlier this year.

Cardarella handles mostly traffic law at the Kansas City Municipal Court.

The acquittals means the two should not face suspensions of their law licenses.

According to Missouri ethics rules, an attorney convicted of a federal felony would face disciplinary action.

Sara Rittman, state legal ethics counsel, said the typical suspension of a law license is six months for a federal felony, but that can run longer or shorter depending on the nature of the crime.

She added that it would be unlikely for a convicted attorney to get a hearing.

“The attorney already had due process through the federal system, so it’s a matter of filing documentation with a criminal conviction,” she said. “The attorney could potentially have an opportunity to respond. But it’s very unlikely that a hearing would be afforded to the attorney.”


Latest Opinion Digests

See all digests

Top stories

See more news