Parallelism debate. Do I need the word “of” to make this correct?

Question

I am having a debate with a friend. She thinks this is correct:

The judge told the jury that he had excused a juror for having purposely provided murder photos to the media and then of stashing the money he had received to hide evidence that would support his claim of > innocence.

and I think this is correct:

The judge told the jury that he had excused a juror for having purposely provided murder photos to the media and then stashing the money he had received to hide evidence that would support his claim of > innocence.

the debate is about whether the of is necessary. What do we think?

Answer 1

Parallelism would be "excused a juror for having provided photos ... and then for stashing ..."

The second for is not necessary, but if you are going to include a preposition, of is not the right one.

The verb excused governs the choice of preposition here.

You are excused for and accused of...