By Roger McKinney

rmckinney@joplinglobe.com

GALENA, Kan. — A federal prosecutor in the case against Sunflower Supply Co. owner Gary Hall sees potential problems with Hall paying the legal fees of his co-defendants and with some defendants sharing a single defense attorney.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mona Furst has filed a motion in U.S. District Court, Wichita, to determine whether a conflict of interest exists.

In another motion, Furst seeks more time to prepare for trial because of the complexity of the case. A tentative trial date of Jan. 13 had been set.

A 43-count federal indictment against Hall and seven others associated with his Galena wholesale tobacco business was filed last month. The indictment alleges the defendants defrauded the state of Oklahoma and American Indian tribes in the state of $25 million in tax revenue. Charges include multiple counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Hall, 66, of rural Joplin, Mo., is listed in the indictment as president and owner of Sunflower who also exercised control over Discount Tobacco Warehouse, 402 Grand Ave., Joplin; National Tobacco Distributors; Rebel Industries Inc.; Halls Collection Inc.; Shawnee Tobacco Smoke Shop in Harrah, Okla.; and Sunflower Aircraft Inc.

Other defendants are:

Thomas Anthony Grantham, 50, of Joplin, who manages operations at Sunflower and Rebel for Hall.

Keith Dion Noe, 42, of Joplin, accountant for Sunflower, Discount Tobacco Warehouse, Rebel Industries and Shawnee Tobacco Smoke Shop.

Justin Boyes, 32, of Galena, who previously worked for Hall at Sunflower and most recently worked for him at Discount Tobacco Warehouse.

Danny Ray Davis, 62, of Galena, who worked for Hall at Sunflower and most recently worked for him at Rebel.

Jeremy Wayne Hooker, 33, of Salina, Okla., who operates Pipestone Smoke Shop in Vinita, Okla.

Justice Michael Berry, 36, of Joplin, worked for Hall as an accountant.

James William Coble, 35, of Galena, who worked for Hall at Sunflower and most recently worked for him at Rebel.

Sunflower Supply Co., Discount Tobacco Warehouse and Rebel Industries also are named as defendants in the indictment.

In her motion, Furst seeks a court hearing to determine if defendants sharing an attorney represents a conflict of interest. She notes that Jim Pratt represents both Hall and Sunflower Supply Co.; Michael Shultz represents Rebel Industries and Coble; and Robin Fowler represents Discount Tobacco Warehouse and Boyes.

“Conflicts of interest arise whenever an attorney’s loyalties are divided and an attorney who cross-examines those from whom he has previously obtained privileged information inherently encounters divided loyalties,” Furst wrote. “Forgoing cross-examination deprives a defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel; while pursuing cross-examination would violate ethical standards regarding privileged communications.”

Furst also wrote that Hall’s payment of attorneys for defendants and witnesses may represent a conflict. She compared the situation with drug distribution networks, where lower-level defendants are paid by people higher up in the network. She wrote that Hall is the employer or former employer of all the defendants.

“Here, it may well be that Hall and/or Sunflower will impair the defendants’ abilities to negotiate a pretrial resolution of this case because to do so would inhibit Hall’s ability to protect himself, his companies and his empire,” Furst wrote.

Pratt, Hall’s attorney, wrote in response to questions e-mailed to him by the Globe that he intends to file a response with the court “at the appropriate time.”

He wrote that he doesn’t object to the court declaring the case as complex and extending the time to prepare for a trial.

Baxter Springs attorney Chris Meek, who is one of Jeremy Hooker’s attorneys, said the motions don’t apply to his client. He said he isn’t representing any defendant other than Hooker and Hall isn’t paying his fees. He said it would be up to the judge to determine if a conflict exists.

He said he was troubled by the comparison in the motion to the payment arrangements in a drug case.

“In a way, that analogy struck me as being far-fetched,” Meek said.

He said he is certain the judge will designate the case as complex and unusual, and set a new trial date.

Meek said he has heard comments among locals that the defendants must be guilty of something if they have been charged. He said that’s not how the judicial system works.

“These folks are presumed innocent,” Meek said.







Passports surrendered

Gary Hall and some of the other defendants in the case have surrendered their passports, according to court documents.