By Jerry Jordan, Editor
Jurors in the federal criminal trial of Patricia Pauline Driscoll, former head of the Armed Forces Foundation charity that utilized ties to NASCAR to solicit donations, are still deliberating her fate on one count of fraud, two counts of wire fraud and two counts of tax evasion.
Driscoll was first exposed for questionable expenditures by Kickin’ the Tires in 2014 after an in-depth review of financial records leaked to the media outlet. The documents showed Driscoll used money donated to the charity to pay for alcohol-fueled parties, lavish jewelry, personal travel, groceries for her home and personal expenses for family members. Additionally, banking records showed she paid expenses and credit card balances for her privately-owned, Frontline Defense Systems, from the charity’s coffers.
Driscoll is the ex-girlfriend of NASCAR Champion, Kurt Busch, who levied false allegations of assault after she used his personal unlock code to gain entry into his motor coach at Dover International Speedway in September 2014 following the couple’s breakup. Prior to their split, she used Busch’s status to make her way through the garage raising funds that federal prosecutors say were used for personal gain. As for the charges against Busch, Delaware prosecutors dismissed them after an investigation revealed there was no evidence to substantiate her abuse claim.
Federal prosecutors began, October 18, laying out their case against Driscoll, putting forth 25 witnesses to show she was a manipulative bully who lied to donors of the Armed Forces Foundation and the IRS, the charity’s board of directors. They claim she used more than $500,000 for personal gain. Originally, Driscoll was facing an eight-count federal indictment but Count 1 “Attempts to Interfere with the Administration of Internal Revenue Service Laws” was tossed before trial began.
Defense attorneys also filed a Rule 29 Motion seeking to throw out the entire indictment on the grounds the government didn’t prove the charges against Driscoll but U.S. Judge Richard Leon denied the request in part. However, he did rule the government failed to prove Driscoll committed the two counts of mail fraud she was facing.
According to the Cornell University Law School, a Rule 29 Motion is filed, “After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.
“(b) Reserving Decision. The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.”
Additionally, Brian Stolarz, who is representing Driscoll made an oral motion for mistrial but that too, was also denied by Judge Leon. His argument centered around the fact that an IRS investigator sat-in on a custody proceeding where Driscoll testified under oath.
According to a court filing by prosecutors in response to the oral motion, “On October 31, 2018, the defense made an oral motion for a mistrial. The defendant alleged that IRS-Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent Robert Valdini’s presence at a public child custody hearing, at which the defendant, Patricia Driscoll, testified under oath, violated her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, because Agent Valdini did not disclose his identity to the defendant when he was asked. The defense also contended that the Government violated its discovery obligations by not disclosing Special Agent Valdini’s memoranda of activity documenting his presence at the custody hearing until August of 2018. Finally, the defense has suggested that Agent Valdini and/or the FBI agents assigned to this case supplied the defendant’s adversary in the custody proceedings with information about the criminal investigation to influence the outcome of the custody matter and/or to enlist them as government agents.
“The defendant’s motion should be denied. The defendant was aware of a criminal investigation at the time she elected to testify in the custody hearing and began her testimony before she inquired as to the purpose of Agent Valdini’s presence and his identity; his presence at the hearing and decision not to disclose his identity had no influence over the defendant’s decision to testify. Additionally, the Court previously denied a defense motion for discovery about contacts between the parties involved in the child custody matter and law enforcement. 8/31/2017 Minute Entry; see also Dkt. Nos. (Docket Numbers) 31, 33. Notwithstanding that Order and the fact that the Government did not intend on calling Agent Valdini as a witness in its case, the Government produced two of Agent Valdini’s memoranda documenting his presence at the custody hearing and his interactions with the defendant more than six weeks before trial, on August 31, 2018. And no Government agent participated in or provided information to the defendant’s adversary in furtherance of the custody proceeding.”
Click to view a chart of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
If Driscoll is found guilty on the wire fraud counts the maximum penalty is a $250,000 fine and confinement in federal prison for a maximum of 20 years. The tax evasion charges carry a maximum prison term of five years and a $250,000 fine and the first-degree fraud charge also has a maximum punishment of 20 years in prison. However, because the federal government uses what is known as “Federal Sentencing Guidelines” all punishments are established based on a system of points or levels and previous criminal history. Driscoll has no criminal history, so her Criminal History Points would be at 0 or 1. For example, the fraud charge carries a Level 7 penalty but because Driscoll is alleged to have defrauded donors out of $500,000 the penalty level could be increased by 14 – making the first-degree fraud penalty level at 21. Additionally, if she is found to have defrauded more than 50 people the penalty again increases by four levels to 25. That level would call for incarceration in federal prison for a period of between 51 and 63 months.
It is unlikely Driscoll would receive any dispensation from the penalty levels as she chose to exercise her right to a jury trial. It is not uncommon for judges to allow a “downward departure” when a defendant agrees to a plea deal or cooperates with prosecutors. She did neither. The same type of formula would be used for the wire fraud and tax evasion charges but only the highest penalty would be used rather than stacking the punishment concurrently.
PREVIOUS DRISCOLL COVERAGE: