Bribery convictions beat ‘love’ defense in Richardson trial
SHERMAN — Laura Maczka was a first-time mayor, earning $2,600 a year, with three kids and a mortgage and a concern for appearances.
Mark Jordan came from a different world. A wealthy businessman, he cultivated a taste for luxury and expensive things, the government said.
He was also a womanizer, according to prosecutors. And he wanted to develop a prime plot of land he’d bought in Maczka’s city alongside busy Interstate 75. But there was a problem: The majority of her neighbors adamantly opposed any new apartments nearby, according to testimony.
Their relationship was the subject of a three-week federal trial that ended Friday when a jury convicted them both of bribery concerning a program receiving federal funds, conspiracy to commit bribery concerning a program receiving federal funds, tax fraud and conspiracy to commit tax fraud.
Prosecutors say Maczka, now Laura Jordan, received attention, sex, $18,000 in cash, $40,000 by check, a Mercedes convertible and $24,000 in home renovations from Mark Jordan in exchange for her votes for his project.
She voted for his Palisades development during her single two-year term as mayor despite her promises to oppose new apartments and intense opposition from hundreds of nearby homeowners, some who had been her friends, the govern
ment alleges.
All told, the value of the benefits she accepted from him — but did not publicly disclose — added up to at least $130,000, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Anand Varadarajan.
That included at least a dozen trips to exotic locations, usually in fabulous accommodations overlooking the ocean, he said. But there were also intangible benefits: his attention, affection and the sex they had in fancy hotels, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Heather Rattan.
“The cornerstone of a representative democracy is that citizens can rely on their elected officials to wield their official powers in a way that furthers the best interests of the community, rather than to benefit their friends and cronies,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei. “Today’s verdict will go a long way towards bolstering public confidence in the integrity of our democratic institutions and promoting open and honest governance.”
Defense lawyers argued the gifts were from a lovestruck suitor to his girlfriend and had nothing to do with her votes.
They also argued that the mayor publicly supported the Palisades project before she even met the developer because it was planned smartly, in a transportation corridor with mixed uses like retail and green space.
“She knew this was good for the city,” said Jeff Kearney, her attorney. “Mark did not need to bribe Laura.”
The couple’s lawyers acknowledged their clients’ mistakes — the trail of deceit and lies tied to their infidelities. But they accused the government of trying to spin a love affair into a serious federal crime.
Laura married Mark in 2017 — an act the government calls part of the coverup — and she still works for his company.
This was their second trial. They were convicted the first time in 2019. But U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant ordered a new trial after defense attorneys complained that a juror had been improperly influenced. It stemmed from a court security officer’s remark to try to calm the distraught and undecided juror hours before the verdict.
Laura Jordan was elected mayor in May 2013 after running on a platform that included opposition to apartments near homes.
Videotape played for the jury showed her listening as Mark Jordan addressed the Richardson City Council, describing his billion-dollar project as “biblical” in its breath and scope.
She later told him in “flirty” emails that she was “taking bullets” for him at heated community meetings about his Palisades development and its apartments that people fought so hard against.
Switching vote
Kearney said the two worked closely together on the project and it developed into a relationship. Rattan told jurors the two exchanged over 200 texts and calls before the Palisades even went before the City Council for approval.
The first council vote was taken in December 2013. Laura “flipped her vote” then and again into 2015, despite knowing her neighbors strongly opposed the Palisades, said Rattan.
By January 2014, their relationship was sexual, prosecutors say. And the gifts increased.
Rattan told jurors that benefits given in a bribery conspiracy can come before as well as after an official act like a vote.
By around mid-2015, word of a federal investigation into the couple’s dealings leaked out. The developer retained a former federal judge. His suggestion: If you gave her an engagement ring, that would be pretty good for our case, prosecutors said.
“The seed was planted,” Varadarajan said in his closing argument.
But marriage wasn’t immediately possible, he said. The developer was still married.
The mayor won re-election but opted to step down, choosing instead to be with Jordan, the defense attorneys said.
Meanwhile, Jordan attempted to cheat on one mistress with another. The mayor learned about his failed 2016 attempt with the woman, a former love interest and business associate.
Cogdell told jurors they “may not like him” but that his client’s sexual indiscretions were not proof of corruption. And Mark still loved Laura, he added, despite being a “cad.”
“He’s got warts,” he said. “Whatever he is, he’s not guilty of this offense.”
Laura told jurors on Thursday, her second day of testimony, that it was a moment of “weakness” and that she forgave him. But prosecutors called it more evidence of their sham love affair.
And when the couple learned that Mark’s ex-wife was talking in a May 2017 federal court hearing, a minister was retained and days later the couple was married, Rattan told jurors.
Real love?
Varadarajan told jurors the case was about “corrupting the integrity of the vote.”
He said Laura was not just attracted to Mark; she liked his money and his lifestyle.
With each vote Laura cast for his Palisades project, the windfall of benefits he bestowed on her increased, Varadarajan said.
Love or friendship is not a defense to bribery as long as there was intent to influence her vote, he said.
“We have lie after lie after lie,” Varadarajan said. “We’re dealing with sophisticated people. That’s the real world. Deals are made under the table, with a wink and a nod.”
Laura lied about Mark paying for her extensive home renovations, he said. Mark hid his gifts to her from a city ethics inquiry as well as a divorce court.
Had Laura recused herself or voted against Mark’s development, would he have continued to pursue her and shower her with gifts?
“The answer is absolutely not,” Varadarajan said.
But Kearney said two of the couple’s six children testified during the trial that the blended family’s household is full of genuine love.
“It’s not a bribe. It’s a love affair. And it’s real,” he said.
Cogdell told jurors there was no evidence that his client was romantically involved with the mayor prior to her first vote on the Palisades project in December 2013.
He said Mark’s stake in Palisades was relatively small; he had about $115,000 invested. And he angrily blasted prosecutors for suggesting Laura was a gold digger.
“Shame on them,” he said, voice booming. “It’s not like she was crawling her way out of the ghetto.”
The government’s secret recordings of Mark — taken by a jilted ex-lover turned FBI informant — were somewhat of a dud and unhelpful to either side.
The defense noted the lack of any “gotcha” moments. But prosecutors said Mark was well aware of a federal investigation by that time and was being careful with his words.
Rattan said Mark had good reason to suspect he was being recorded.
“Deny, deny, deny,” she said.