• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA::v.:CRIMINAL NO. 06-319:VINCENT J. FUMO:RUTH ARNAO:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S MOTION TO ADMIT STATEMENTSOF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT VINCENT J. FUMO
The United States of America hereby moves to admit certain statements of attorney Richard A. Sprague made during the time that Sprague represented defendantVincent J. Fumo in this case. Specifically, Sprague repeatedly stated to the government onFumo’s behalf that Fumo did not receive any personal benefits from Citizens Alliance atany time, and requested on that basis that Fumo not be charged with any wrongdoing. Thesestatements are in direct contradiction to the defense currently set forth by Fumo and hisco-defendant, Ruth Arnao. The statements are admissible to rebut the current defense, andto show Fumo’s consciousness of guilt.
I.BACKGROUND.
The government’s investigation regarding Citizens Alliance came to publicattention in a
 Philadelphia Inquirer 
article on January 25, 2004. Shortly thereafter,Sprague, on Fumo’s behalf, requested a meeting with the United States Attorney, several of his assistants, and federal investigators. Sprague then told the investigators that Fumo had
 
2not received any compensation or other benefits from Citizens Alliance, that CitizensAlliance was and always had been independently operated, and that Fumo would be fullycooperative with the investigation.More than two years later, on August 8, 2006, as the investigation progressed, Sprague, at his request, met with the assigned prosecutors and agents. At thismeeting, he endeavored to explain each of the matters under investigation and to ask thatFumo not be charged with any offense. He reiterated that Fumo did not receive anythingfrom Citizens Alliance (“not one penny,” he said), and that the government’s suspicionsotherwise were misplaced.This remained the defense position throughout the time prior to the return of the superseding indictment naming Fumo on February 6, 2007. Indeed, Fumo himself madeidentical statements throughout the same period. For example, government exhibit 920,entered into evidence on January 8, 2009, is a radio interview with Fumo on January 29,2004, shortly after publicity regarding the investigation began, when Fumo stated regardingCitizens Alliance: “I don’t get any money from it. I don’t get any benefits from it. In fact,I, I think that they, once in a while picked up trash in my house, and I said oh God, I’m paying you a hundred dollars a month in case you do anything for me. I pay them.”The defense position at trial, however, has been completely different. In hisopening statement, Fumo’s attorney addressed at great length Fumo’s litigation againstPECO, suggesting that Fumo thereby procured $17 million for Citizens Alliance. Counselthen stated: “He got some consumer goods as compensation of time. That’s what the
 
 
The government was quite surprised by the defense opening statements, to put it
1
mildly, having never before heard the critical admission that Fumo received goods andservices from Citizens Alliance. Thus, there was no basis before the trial for seeking toadmit the opposite statements of Fumo’s prior counsel.3government says, or he used or owned or got or received some tools.” Tr. 113.Subsequently, in cross-examination of government witnesses, Fumo’s attorney hasendeavored to demonstrate that nonprofits are permitted to pay compensation tofundraisers such as Fumo.Counsel for Arnao, presenting a joint and consistent defense, took up thecompensation theme at greater length in his opening statement, stating in part:We treated him to things. We bought him tools, we did that. We tell him use it aslong as you want, give it back when you’re done. Or if you don’t give it back, that’sokay too. . . .We lent them the bulldozer. We treated him when he opened up his place at theshore. We treated him. And you heard Mr. Pease read these things, hotdog rolls andDVDs. Yeah, we did that. We treated him. We said this is on us. So we’re going tolet you buy this stuff, we’re going to pay for it. Citizens going to pay for it, we oweyou, we owe you. We did remove snow and trash. We removed snow and trash for everybody all over Philadelphia but we did go the extra mile or several miles and wedid do it for him down at the shore too. We did these things as courtesies, we didthem as perks, we did them as favors, we did them as whatever you want to call them.We did them because he deserved all that and more, and much more. . . .So we did those things for him and we let him use the van. We did all those thingsfor him. And you can call them or we can call them anything that we want. We cancall them gifts, favors, comps, perks, compensation, you could call about anything.We did it, we felt it was the right thing to do, we felt it was fair, we felt, if anything,he was entitled to a lot more.Tr. 152.
1
of 00

Leave a Comment

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