Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Sergey Aleynikov's Defense Brief

Sergey Aleynikov's Defense Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 13,213|Likes:
Published by DealBook
Sergey Aleynikov's defense brief in theft case in which he is accused of stealing source code from Goldman Sachs.
Sergey Aleynikov's defense brief in theft case in which he is accused of stealing source code from Goldman Sachs.

More info:

Published by: DealBook on Feb 21, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

08/23/2012

pdf

text

original

 
11-1126-cr 
United States Court of Appeals
 for the
Second Circuit
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
 Appellee,
 – v. – SERGEY ALEYNIKOV,
 Defendant-Appellant.
 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
M
ARINO
,
 
T
ORTORELLA
&
 
B
OYLE
,
 
P.C.
 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant 
437 Southern BoulevardChatham, New Jersey 07928(973) 824-9300
 
Case: 11-1126 Document: 52 Page: 1 06/03/2011 306254 73
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iiiSTATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................... 1
 
ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................................................................... 1
 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 2
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 5
 
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 9
 
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 14
 
I.
 
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DISMISS OR GRANT A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ON THE ITSPACOUNT. ......................................................................................................... 14
 
A.
 
Intangible Property Such As Computer Source Code Is Not AGood, Ware Or Merchandise Within The Meaning Of The ITSPA. ....... 14
 
B.
 
The Government Failed To Produce Sufficient Evidence Of AMarket For The Trade Secret Aleynikov Allegedly Stole. ...................... 21
 
1.
 
The Government Produced No Evidence Of A MarketFor The Source Code Aleynikov Allegedly Stole. ........................ 21
 
2.
 
The District Court Erred By Permitting TheGovernment To Introduce Evidence Of A Market For Entire Trading Systems. .................................................................23
 
II.
 
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DISMISS OR GRANT A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AS TO THE EEACOUNT. ......................................................................................................... 24
 
A.
 
The Trading System Is Not A Product Produced For Or Placed InInterstate Commerce. ................................................................................ 24
 
B.
 
The District Court’s Interpretation Of The EEA Ignores TheStatute’s Plain Language, Violates Fundamental Principles Of Statutory Construction, And Alters The Balance Between StateAnd Federal Prosecutions Of A Traditional State-Law Offense. ............ 30
 
C.
 
The Government Failed To Adduce Evidence That AleynikovIntended, Or Had The Ability, To Injure Goldman.................................. 41
 
Case: 11-1126 Document: 52 Page: 2 06/03/2011 306254 73
 
 
iiIII.
 
THE DISTRICT COURT’S ERRONEOUS REFUSAL TO STRIKETHE DOWNLOADED DOCUMENTS AND ANY RELATEDTESTIMONY RESULTED IN A CONSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENTOF THE INDICTMENT THAT WARRANTS A NEW TRIAL. ................ 46
 
A.
 
The District Court Erred By Not Striking The DownloadedDocuments Because The Government’s Reliance On ThemViolated The Grand Jury Clause Of The Fifth Amendment. ................... 49
 
B.
 
The District Court Erred By Not Giving A Limiting InstructionRegarding The Downloaded Documents. ................................................ 51
 
IV.
 
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY ENHANCINGALEYNIKOV’S SENTENCE BASED ON A SPECULATIVE LOSSAMOUNT AND BY IMPOSING A SENTENCE THAT WAS NEITHER REASONABLE NOR CONSISTENT WITHSENTENCES IMPOSED IN SIMILAR CASES. ......................................... 52
 
A.
 
Aleynikov’s Offense Conduct Did Not Involve Any Actual Or Intended Loss. ........................................................................................... 53
 
B.
 
Aleynikov’s 97-Month Sentence Grossly Overstated TheCriminality Of His Offense and Was Not Consistent withSentences Imposed in Similar Cases. ....................................................... 58
 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 61
 
Case: 11-1126 Document: 52 Page: 3 06/03/2011 306254 73

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
tomcathatcher liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->