Taxpayers to pay for Huffman defense

Taxpayers will pay for J.V. Huffman Jr.'s defense in his upcoming trial on securities fraud and obtaining property by false pretenses.

Huffman appeared in Superior Court on Thursday with his attorneys, Peter Anderson and Nathan Taylor from Anderson Terpening law firm in Charlotte. They made several pre-trial motions before Judge W. Robert Bell.

Huffman, 45, faces four charges of securities fraud and four charges of obtaining property by a false pretense stemming from a 2008 indictment. He has pleaded not guilty to these eight charges, with his next court date set for Monday, Aug. 24.

On June 16, Huffman was indicted on 10 additional charges of securities fraud and 10 charges of obtaining property by a false pretense. His next court date for these charges is Monday, Aug. 3.

All of the indictments relate to Huffman and his company, Biltmore Financial Inc. Huffman is accused of lying to family and friends for 17 years, telling them he bought and sold securities as he took millions of dollars from them to pay for his lavish lifestyle in a Ponzi scheme.

Motion for court-appointed attorney
Taylor argued Huffman no longer has money to pay for attorneys and said the most efficient thing to do would be to join all of the charges together into one case, and have Huffman's current attorneys represent him as court-appointed attorneys.

The prosecution disagreed, arguing that the defense was well aware of Huffman's financial status when they took on his case in late November.

Catawba County also has guidelines about court-appointed attorneys that Anderson Terpening does not adhere to. Defense attorneys should have offices in Catawba County to be court-appointed.

"If he is indigent, we have not seen his financial statements," said Eric Bellas, prosecutor with the district attorney's office, adding that if Huffman is entitled to a court-appointed attorney, "it (would) not be one of his choosing, who maintains an office in Charlotte."

Bell ruled in favor of the defense, allowing Anderson Terpening law firm to continue representing Huffman, in the 2008 and 2009 indictments.

"To me, it makes it logical to appoint you to all the cases," he said.

Motion of joinder
The defense filed a motion to combine all of Huffman's indictments into one trial. Bell denied the motion but urged the defense to remake their case at a later date.

"I'm denying a motion to join because the state hasn't completed its investigation and there may be more indictments to come," Bell said.

During this motion, Bellas said although the initial four indictments from 2008 are scheduled for trial on Aug. 24, they will not necessarily be tried together.

"The state has not joined any cases together," he said. "They are on the same court calendar, but they are separate victims."

Bellas said joining all the indictments, with up to 500 victims, would be too cumbersome a trial for a jury to deal with, and argued that keeping the details of that many cases straight would be difficult for a jury.

Defense attorneys disagreed.

"There is a significant, common element to all the trials," Taylor said. "It makes sense to us to have as many victims as possible in the first trial, so they can receive compensation from the assets as soon as possible."

Bellas said there was another argument for not joining the cases. The judge could expect more indictments.

"Additional indictments will be forthcoming if the defendant does not reach a plea deal," he said.
When pressed by Bell, Bellas said there could be hundreds more indictments.

Motion for change of venue
Taylor argued that every aspect of the Huffman case has been covered in the media. That, along with the number of victims in the area and comments on area blogs, is why Huffman's attorneys want his trial moved to another location.

"I estimate there are hundreds of victims in the community," he said. "And the notoriety of the case is widespread.

"The media coverage and word-of-mouth has made it highly unlikely that he will get a fair trial," Taylor said.

Bellas said Huffman's victims range from Catawba County to Colorado. Similarly, people don't have to be in the area to blog on Web sites. There's no proof that people who blog on the Web sites are from Catawba County and would taint the jury pool.

"Counsel has not pointed out any inflammatory coverage," Bellas said. "You cannot argue there will be an unfair trial."

The judge said the defense's motion was "premature."

Taylor withdrew his motion and said he would re-visit it at more appropriate time.

Motion for leave to file additional motions
Taylor filed this motion so other motions can be filed at a later date if the defense needs to. The judge granted this motion.