• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITEDSTATES
DISTRICT
COURTNORTHERNDISTRICT
OF
NEW
YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA09-CR-29(GLS)
v.
JOSEPHL.BRUNO,Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------x
DEFENDANT
JOSEPH
L.
BRUNO'SMEMORANDUM
OF
LAW
IN
SUPPORT
OF
HIS
MOTION
IN
LIMINE
TO
EXCLUDEEVIDENCE
AND
TO
BAR
THE
GOVERNMENT
FROM
CONSTRUCTIVELYAMENDING
THE
INDICTMENT
OR
CAUSINGAN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
VARIANCEAT
TRIAL
(DEFENDANT'S
MOTION
IN
LIMINE
#4)
AbbeDavidLowell,
Bar
Number106642PaulM.ThompsonChristopherD.ManMcDermottWill
&
EmeryLLP60013thStreet,NWWashington,DC20005Phone:202-756-8001Facsimile:202-756-8087adlowell@mwe.comWilliam
1.
Dreyer,Esq.DreyerBoyajianLLP75ColumbiaStreetAlbany,NY12210Phone:518-463-7784Facsimile:518-463-4039
Attorneys
for
DefendantJoseph
L.
Bruno
 
DefendantJosephL.BrunosubmitsthisMemorandum
of
LawinSupport
of
hisMotion
inLimine
toExcludeEvidenceandto
Bar
theGovernmentfromConstructivelyAmendingtheIndictmentorCausinganUnconstitutionalVarianceatTrial,andfurtherstatesasfollows:
INTRODUCTIONIn
theface
of
repeatedchallenges,thegovernmenthasurgedthatitshouldbepermittedtointroduceattrialevidence
ofMr.
Bruno's
allegedconductspanningfourteen
years-well
beforethestatute-of-limitationsperiodapplicabletothis
case-on
thetheorythatsuchevidenceisrelevanttoMr.
Bruno's
allegedcreation
of
asingle,long-runningcriminalscheme.HavingmadesuchachargeintheIndictment,thegovernmentmustnowbeheldtoitsword.
If
thegovernmentdoesnotestablishattrialthatthedisparateandunrelatedconductitallegedMr.Brunoengagedwithrespecttovarious
of
hisconsultingfirms'clientsconstitutedasingle,uniformscheme,thenitstheory-of-the-caseattrialwillimpermissiblyvaryfromtheterms
of
theIndictment,creatinganunconstitutionalconstructivevariance.Whetherornotthegovernmentispermittedtoabandonitssingle-schemetheoryinfavor
of
amorelimitedapproach,however,anyevidence
ofMr.
Bruno's
time-barredactsmustbeexcludedattrial,astheyareirrelevantandundulyprejudicial.
In
addition,theconstitutionalmandateagainstconstructiveamendmentand/orvariancesfromtheIndictmentrequiresthatthegovernment,inadvance
of
trial,finallymakeclearwhich
of
itscountsagainstMr.Brunoarebaseduponthetheorythathefailedtodiscloseaconflict
of
interestandwhichuponthetheorythathefailedtodiscloseaunlawfulgift.
ARGUMENTI.TheGovernmentIsConstitutionallyRequiredtoProvethe"SingleScheme"toDefraudThat
It
AllegedintheIndictment.
TheIndictmentallegesthatMr.Brunoparticipatedinaschemetodefraudthecitizens
of
theState
of
New
Yorkfrom1993to2006.Thisallegedsingularschemeinvolved36separate
-1-
 
entities-20
differentcorporations,Indictmentat
~ ~
11-16,60,and16differentlaborunions,Indictmentat
~
22.
It
furtherallegespotentialmisconductrelatingtovariouscontractsandagreementsMr.Brunoenteredintoovera14-yearperiod.But,despitethelitany
of
companiesandpersonsnamedintheIndictmentandthelengthy14-yeartimespanalleged,theactualchargesonlyrelateto9
of
the36entitiesandinvolvemailingsand/orwiresfrom2004to2006.Indictmentat
~ ~
65-66.HavingjustifiedtheIndictment'sbreadthbasedontheclaimthatthishistoricalconductremainsrelevanttoprovethat
Mr.
Brunoparticipatedinasingle,long-rangingcriminalscheme,thegovernmentcannotconstitutionallyabandonthatargumentattrial.TheSixthAmendmentrequiresthatacriminaldefendant"beinformed
of
thenatureandcause
of
theaccusation,"U.S.Const.,amend.VI,andtheFifthAmendmentprotectsadefendant's"dueprocess"trialrights.U.S.Const.,amend.V;
seealsoUnitedStates
v.
Salmonese,
352F.3d608,619(2dCir.2003)(requiringdefendanttobe"givennotice
of
thecore
of
criminalitytobeprovenattrial");
UnitedStates
v.
Seeger,
303F.2d478(2dCir.1962)(reversingconvictionbasedongovernment'sfailuretoprovidedefendantwithfairnotice
of
thechargesagainsthim).Thisconstitutionalguaranteebindsthegovernmenttothetheory
of
criminalityitpresentedtothegrandjury,lestitconstructivelyamendtheIndictmentthroughitspresentation
of
adifferenttheorytothepetitjury.
"To
prevailonaconstructiveamendmentclaim,adefendantmustdemonstratethat
...
itisuncertainwhetherthedefendantwasconvicted
of
conductthatwasthesubject
of
thegrand
jury's
indictment."
Salmonese,
352F.3dat620.Similarly,"[a]varianceoccurswhenthechargingterms
of
theindictmentareleftunaltered,buttheevidenceofferedattrialprovesfactsmateriallydifferentfromthoseallegedintheindictment."
Id.
at621.BothareforbiddenunderourConstitution.
-2-
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...