P. 1
T111809 US v Bruno PM Gluchowski

T111809 US v Bruno PM Gluchowski

|Views: 26|Likes:
Published by Albany Times Union

More info:

Published by: Albany Times Union on Nov 26, 2009
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

11/25/2009

pdf

text

original

230 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Gluchowski. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: MS. COOMBE: THE COURT: Okay.

You are. You are. If you're more comfortable Am I audible? FRANCIS J. GLUCHOWSKI, having been duly sworn by the Clerk of the Court, was examined and testified as follows: THE CLERK: Thank you. Please take a seat in

the witness stand and we just ask that you speak into the microphone. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Okay. You can adjust that microphone,

sitting back, you can pull that microphone towards you. Whatever you want. Miss Coombe. MS. COOMBE: Thank you, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. COOMBE: Q. A. Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Gluchowski. Good afternoon. Could you please introduce yourself to the ladies

and gentlemen of the jury? A. Hello. I'm Frank Gluchowski, and I formerly

worked as the legislative counsel to the Senate majority from 1997 until I retired in on December 30th of 2008. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

231 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1989. Q. A. committee. Q. Did your title change while you worked for the What was your title when you started? Well, I was the counsel to the legislative ethics Q. I want to get something straight. How do you

pronounce your last name? different pronunciations. A. Q. Phonetic.

Because there's been very

Gluchowski. Mr. Gluchowski, can you tell

Thank you very much.

us about your educational background? A. Yes. I attended law school at St. Johns Before that, I

University and was graduated in 1983.

studied at New York Institute of Technology, where I got a Bachelor's degree. Q. Now, you mentioned earlier that you had worked for

the New York State Legislature. A. Q. That is correct. When did you begin working for the New York State

Legislature? A. That would have been in -- on April 10th of

legislative ethics committee? A. Yes. At some point after a few years, I don't

remember the exact time, I became the counsel and director of the legislative ethics committee. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

232 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Can you tell us what the legislative ethics

committee was? A. Yes. It was a bipartisan joint assembly of eight

members of the Legislature, meaning there were four Democrats and four Republicans, four from the Assembly and four from the Senate, and they were established under the Ethics in Government Act of 1987, when it came into being in 1988 at some point, but I didn't get there until 1989. And

the function of the committee was to administer financial disclosure for legislators and employees and candidates for the Legislature and to render advisory opinions on questions asked by the people subject to the committee's jurisdiction and, finally, to investigate complaints made to the committee. Q. You mentioned written advisory opinions. Who

drafted those opinions while you were at the committee? A. Well, for the first few years, the initial draft

was by subordinate employee named Barry Weinstein, but I don't think Barry stayed more than a couple of years. then I drafted the opinions and the opinions that Barry drafted initially, I approved and reworked. They were And

ultimately my responsibility to present to the committee. And then at committee meetings, the committee would sometimes change the advice or sometimes they approved it just as it was presented. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

233 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. A. Q. Were those opinions available to the public? No, they were not. Were they available to other senators? No, they're not. How did the committee obtain the facts necessary

to issue a written advisory opinion? A. The committee would only accept written requests

for advice, and the facts that were in the letter were incorporated in the part of the opinion that dealt with the facts. Q. Did the committee take formal votes on the

advisory opinions? A. Q. committee? A. Q. committee? A. Ah, my last day was December 31st of 1996. And Yes, I did. When did you leave the legislative ethics Yes, they did. Did you eventually leave the legislative ethics

I started working for the Senate majority program counsel staff on January 1, 1997. Q. A. Q. A. What was your new position there? Title was legislative counsel. Who did you report to? I reported to Ken Riddett. And at the time there

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

234 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were two co-counsel, so it was Ken Riddett and David -- no, actually, I reported to Ken -- well, Ken was above me, but the two co-counsel at the time were Tim Collins and David Dudley. Q. A. in April. Did they leave shortly after you arrived? Not shortly. Tim, Tim did. Tim left, I believe, Maybe

And David left some number of years later.

two or three years later. Q. What were your duties and responsibilities working And can I

as a legislative counsel for the Senate majority? ask, were you the legislative counsel -A. Q. A. Right. There's just one? Right. There's one legislative counsel.

I

supervised a staff of 20 to 24 professionals and about 20 lawyers for or sometimes up to six counsel. program analysts. Not counsel --

And I would review legislation that was

on the calendar, that means legislation that had been put through committee, and made recommendations as to what bills would be acted on a particular day. And Ken Riddett would

review those recommendations with me and we could lay out an agenda for the next day. I was responsible for floor I was responsible for

operations on the Senate floor.

ethics matter for the subject matter areas of legislative law, Public Officer's Law, and both federal and New York BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

235 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 State constitutional issues. coordinated confirmations. I dealt with confirmations. And I was a liaison with the I

minority and communicated with them as to what they were doing on a given day, so they had some idea. things I'm just not remembering right now. Q. A. What do you mean by floor operations? Floor operations, every day we would prepare an Probably other

agenda and a script that would lay out how we expected the day to proceed. So we would start with the pledge and the

prayer or a moment of silence and proceed through the orders of business on a given legislative day until such time as we got to resolutions when we would pass any resolutions that were pending or bills that were to be brought up that day. Q. While you were working for the Senate, how did you

normally -- well, let me start first, when you were working for the legislative ethics committee, did you have any direct communications with Senator Bruno? A. Ah, there were times when I did. It may have only

been once actually that I talked directly to him, but I did have at least one communication with him directly. Q. A. What was that in connection with? It was, I believe it was in connection with -Right now I can't remember

well, with one of the opinions.

if it was First Grafton or if it was McGinn Smith, but I recall that Senator Breslin authorized me, authorized me to BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

236 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. in it. time. speak with or senator Saland, I can't remember which one the co-chair was at this time, authorized me to call Senator Bruno to get more information for that opinion. Q. Grafton? A. If you say it is. It could have been. I don't -Do you remember if that was with respect to First

if there is a document that would reflect my recollection. Is this water from the last person? THE COURT: Probably. (Laughter.) Take your

Pour yourself another cup. MR. PERICAK: (Laughter.) THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Oh, that's okay. MS. COOMBE: THE COURT: May I approach, your Honor? Yes. That's right. He might have spit some tobacco

Mr. Gluchowski, do you remember testifying in the

grand jury? A. Q. Yes, I do. I'm giving you a copy of your grand jury

transcript, directing your attention to the following portion to see if it helps you remember what you talked to Senator Bruno about. line 2. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY Page 13, line 23, through page 14,

237 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Grafton. Q. A. Q. Does that help you remember? Yes. And that's the only time you talked to Senator Okay. All right. So that would have been First

Bruno directly while you were at the legislative ethics committee? A. You know, I can't be sure of that, but that's the

only time I remember, because there was, there was a note in the file of the Ethics Committee that I had been authorized to speak to him. Q. Okay. And then after you became the legislative

counsel for the Senate majority -A. Q. Yes. -- how did you communicate with Senator Bruno

after 1997? A. Typically through one of his administrative aides. And there

That being either Pat Stackrow or Amy Leitch. were occasions when I spoke to him directly. Q. A.

Did that change at all around the time of 2004? Yes. Around 2004, I spoke with him more regularly

because that was a time when he had a number of questions that involved ethics issues. Q. And how about the period between 1997 and 2004?

How often did you speak directly with Senator Bruno? BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

238 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 name? A. Q. A. Q. DiNapoli. And it states hand delivered? Mm-hmm. Confidential. March 9, 1993. Regarding an BY MS. COOMBE: Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm handing you Government's A. Gee, not, not very often. I don't know if it

would have been, you know, once a year, twice a year. MS. COOMBE: THE COURT: May I approach, your Honor? Yes.

Exhibit G A 9. A. Q. A. Q. Thank you. Your welcome. Yes. Can you let's look at it on the screen. The first Do you recognize that?

page is a letter from then Senator Pataki? A. Q. Correct. And then Thomas, how do you pronounce his last

advisory opinion request 93-03.

Was that some sort of

tracking number for the committee? A. Yes. The numbers were the year and the second

numeral represented the order in which the question came in. Q. A. So this was the third request in 1993? Correct. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

239 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MS. COOMBE: Q. A. Q. A. I'm handing you Government's Exhibit G A 6. Thank you. Your welcome. Yes. Do you recognize that? Q. It says Dear Senator Bruno: Enclosed is the

advisory opinion which you requested on January 14 of 1993. Could we look at page two, please? A. Q. A. Yes. What is this, Mr. Gluchowski? This is the actual advice that the committee voted

on and passed. Q. opinion? A. Q. A. contents. scratch. Yes. What was your role? Well, I was ultimately responsible for its By this time I think I wrote the opinion from I don't think I had a subordinate attorney on Were you involved in preparing this advisory

staff at the committee at the time, so I drafted the opinion. MS. COOMBE: THE COURT: May I approach, your Honor? Yes.

This would be the letter that Senator Bruno

sent requesting the opinion. Q. And this was an opinion regarding McGinn Smith & BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

240 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Company Incorporated? A. Q. That's correct. What was your understanding about what Senator

Bruno would do for McGinn Smith? A. My understanding was, as stated in the facts, that

he would assist in all area of McGinn Smith's banking activities, advise corporate clients on issues relating to marketing, finance and corporate structure, participate in the engagement of asset management of relationships with institutional investors and provide advice and counsel to senior members of the firm. Q. Was it your understanding that he would somehow be

involved in selling securities or marketing securities to clients? A. Q. A. Q. Yes. What was your understanding based upon? It was based on the letter that I received. In drafting the opinion, which is G A 9, did you

rely on the representations in this letter in G A 6? A. Q. Yes. Could we look at G A 9 again, please? Could we

look at the second page please? attention to the facts section.

I would like to direct your Where did the information

come from that is in this facts section? A. It came from the letter dated January 14, 1993, BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

241 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which is G A 6. Q. Did the committee have any practice regarding what

information would be included in the facts section of an advisory opinion? A. Yes. Generally, the facts were taken right from

the letter.

Or if additional facts were deemed necessary by

the committee, I typically would call the person who requested the opinion and ascertain what the additional facts that the committee wanted to know were. And then I

either wrote a followup letter delineating my understanding of those facts and asked the recipient of that letter to let me know if anything that I wrote was incorrect in any way, or the person had the option just sending in a subsequent letter with the additional facts. Q. A. Q. So there would be some written record? Yes. Now, in connection with this opinion regarding

Senator Bruno, did you have any other source of information about what Senator Bruno anticipated his responsibilities would be at McGinn Smith other than the letter that he submitted to the committee? A. No, I did not. I do recall conversing with my

supe -- with not my -- my later supervisor, but at the time one of the counsel in Senator Bruno's office, Ken Riddett, about, you know, what was, what was anticipated, what did he BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

242 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MS. COOMBE: Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm handing you Government's know. And he didn't seem to know much else. And so

basically the letter was the sum and substance of what I knew. Q. Did the committee have any other sources of

information other than the letter regarding what Senator Bruno's activities would be for McGinn Smith? A. No. MS. COOMBE: Your Honor, the Government moves

the admission of Government's Exhibit G A 8 and G A 7. MR. LOWELL: THE COURT: MS. COOMBE: THE COURT: Without objection. Admitted. May I approach, your Honor? Please.

Exhibit G A 8 and G A 7. A. Q. Okay. Thank you. I would like to direct your

Your welcome.

attention first to G A 8. A. Q. A. All right. Can you tell us what this is? Yes. This is a page out of Black's Law Dictionary

which contains the definition of investment banking. Q. Did you consult with Black's Law Dictionary in

connection with preparing the advisory opinion? BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

243 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Yes. Why did you consult Black's Law Dictionary? Well, I didn't have a clear understanding of what

investment banking entailed at the time and I thought the dictionary would be helpful to give me a better understanding of what was contemplated. Q. Okay. And it mentions there investment banker,

and there's a description, as well as investment banking? A. Q. Right. For investment banking it says underwriting and

selling primarily new issues of stocks and bonds to investors. A. Did you rely on that in drafting the opinion? Yes. I thought that was one of the activities

contemplated. Q. At the time of this opinion did you know that

McGinn Smith business was not limited to investment banking, but also included brokerage business? A. Q. No, I didn't. If you could look now please at G A 7. Can you

tell us what that is, please? A. Yes. These are my notes from research that I did

in the legislative library as to what McGinn Smith did. Q. A. Can you read those notes? Yes. It said that -- it says 1992 Standard and McGinn Smith Company Incorporated New York

Poors index.

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

244 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 corporation 1981. business. Twenty-five employees. Brokerage. They -- I knew that they 3 million annual

Investment service. So I stand corrected.

did brokerage activity. June 25, 1990, Capital District Business Review, joint project in Plattsburgh, New York. Q. Now, is the brokerage reflected at all in the

advisory opinion in the facts? A. Q. A. I have to look. Okay. I think it could be alluded to by asset

management, but the term "brokerage" is not specifically mentioned. Q. Is the term "brokerage" mentioned in the letter

from Senator Bruno to the committee, which is G A 6? A. Q. No. So the only reference to brokerage is in your

handwritten notes which you prepared based on some independent research that you did? A. Q. Yes. But you did not understand that Senator Bruno's

activities for McGinn Smith would include any brokerage activities, is that correct? A. I don't, I don't remember what I remembered at

that time or what I knew at that time. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

245 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. answer. A. Q. A. Q. Q. Mr. Gluchowski, do you have your grand jury

transcript up there? A. Q. A. Q. Yes. I would like to refer to you page 22. Okay. Lines 3 to 9. MR. LOWELL: MS. COOMBE: MR. LOWELL: MS. COOMBE: Page what? Twenty-two. Twenty-two? Yup. Okay. Lines 3 to 9. Yes. I do recall. I'm sorry, Judge, which one? The first one. Date? July 17, 2008.

Did I ask you this question and did you give this Question -Yes, I did so. I have to read it though for the -Oh, okay. -- for the record. Question: If you could look

at the first page of that document.

Actually before we move

on from that, you relied on that in understanding what Senator Bruno was going to do at McGinn Smith? Answer: Yes. My understanding was he would be

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

246 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time? A. investors. Q. A. What was your understanding based upon? Well, it was based upon my life experience up to Yes. But brokerage involves selling securities to answer? A. Q. Yes, you did. And yes, I did. somehow involved in selling securities or marketing securities to client. Did I ask you that question and did you give that

And can we look please again at the opinion itself

which is G A 9 at the second page? A. Q. Yes. And do you see that you referred to Black's Law Investment banking involves

Dictionary in this opinion.

selling securities to investors. A. Q. correct? A. Q. No. But isn't that all the same thing? Yes. And you didn't refer at all to brokerage, is that

Did you have any understanding of that at the

that point. Q. All right. And if we look back at the facts,

there's no reference there to brokerage, is there? A. No. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

247 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And, in fact, there's no reference to brokerage in

the opinion, is there? A. Q. A. Q. No, I don't think we used that term. Have you ever heard of Wright Investors Services? Yes. Did you ever prepare a written advisory opinion

regarding Senator Bruno's employment at Wright Investors Services? A. Q. No. Did Senator Bruno ever provide you or the Ethics

Committee with a letter describing his duties for Wright Investors Services? A. Q. No. Did you ever discuss the subject of an advisory

opinion with anyone? A. Q. A. Yes. I discussed it with Ken Riddett.

When did you discuss this issue with Mr. Riddett? While I was still working for the legislative

ethics committee and Ken Riddett called me and asked me about Senator Bruno joining this company Wright Investors Services in some capacity. And we were exploring the notion

of whether or not it was necessary to ask the committee for an opinion. And he suggested that since the facts seem to

be identical to the facts in the McGinn Smith opinion, that it wasn't necessary. And I agreed.

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

248 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I would like to direct your attention back to G A

9, the McGinn Smith opinion. A. Q. A. Q. Yes. Which is on the second page of G A 9. Mm-hmm. The first sentence of the facts states: A member

of the Legislature has been offered a part-time position with an investment banking firm. A. Q. Correct. When you spoke to Mr. Riddett, did he tell you

that Wright Investors was an investment adviser, not an investment banking firm? A. he did. Q. And if you would look at the second sentence The member states that compensation will No, I don't believe he did. I don't recall that

please, it says:

be paid in the form of a straight salary. When Mr. Riddett told you that he did not believe that a new advisory opinion was necessary for Wright Investors Services, did you know that Senator Bruno would be paid commissions instead of a straight salary? A. Q. No, I didn't know that. And it continues: He adds, my responsibilities,

as currently envisioned, would be to assist in all areas of the firm's investment banking activities, advise corporate BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

249 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 clients on issues relating to marketing, finance and corporate structure, participate in the engagement of asset management of relationships with institutional investors and provide advice and counsel to senior members of the firm. At the time that Mr. Riddett suggested to you that an advisory opinion for Wright Investors was not necessary because the facts were similar to McGinn Smith, did you know that Senator Bruno would not be selling securities? A. No, I did not. In fact, I think the conversation

did not get into that kind of detail about what was expected of Senator Bruno by way of this engagement. I believe all

that was represented was that this is another investment banking firm and it would be similar activities to Wright Investors he was doing for McGinn Smith. understanding. Q. Other than what was in Senator Bruno's letter to That was my

the committee requesting an advisory opinion, did you know what Senator Bruno was doing for McGinn Smith? A. Q. No, I did not. At the time that Mr. Riddett suggested to you that

an advisory opinion for Wright Investors Services was not necessary because the facts were similar to McGinn Smith, did you know what Senator Bruno was doing for Wright Investors Services? A. No, I did not. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

250 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 minutes. your Honor? THE COURT: in your questioning. MS. COOMBE: THE COURT: Until 25 after. (Brief recess at 4:10 PM.) (Court reconvened at 4:25 PM.) BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY That's fine, your Honor. All right. Let's take 15 If it's convenient where you are Q. At the time that Mr. Riddett suggested to you that

an advisory opinion for Wright Investors Services was not necessary because the facts were similar to McGinn Smith, did you know that Senator Bruno would be soliciting business from labor officials? A. Q. No, I did not. Did there come a point in time when you became

aware that Senator Bruno was contacting union officials for Wright Investors Services? A. Q. There was a point in time, yes. Did Senator Bruno ever consult with you regarding

whether he could contact a particular union official? A. Yes. MS. COOMBE: THE COURT: May I approach, your Honor? You may. I think we're going to So you tell me.

need another break this afternoon too. MS. COOMBE:

Would you like to take it now,

251 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Honor. THE COURT: MS. COOMBE: THE COURT: Mr. Law about that. MS. COOMBE: Oh, dear. That wouldn't very Thank you. I appreciate it. BY MS. COOMBE: Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm handing you Government's (Jury present.) THE COURT: MS. COOMBE: Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: Please. Miss Coombe. Thank you, your Honor. your

Exhibit G S 10. A. Q. Thank you. Here, I'll take some of this out of your way. THE COURT: MS. COOMBE: Thank you. Might I have a moment, your

Quite a few glasses up here. I'll have a conversation with

good for me so next time I'll just leave them there. (Laughter) BY MS. COOMBE: Q. Could we please look at G S 10. Mr. Gluchowski,

do you recognize this? A. Q. Yes. What is it? BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

252 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. This is a memo to the file that I made on

May 5th of 2006. Q. A. Q. yourself? A. Q. Yes. Now, you prepared this document on May 5th, Did you type this note yourself? Yes, I believe I did. Was it unusual for you to type a document

2006, at 4:25 PM. A. Q. A. Correct. Why did you prepare this document? Well, because it was significant that Senator

Bruno called me to ask a question if he should make a request to Jerry Comer, the regional representative of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. that I would not recommend that he contact them. I told him And I

thought that it was significant in that by this time -Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I just

want to go slowly through this, so if I could just pose another question. Was it unusual for Senator Bruno to

contact you directly himself? A. Not, not by 2006, no, not so -- not, not at that

point it wasn't that unusual. Q. Was it unusual for him to actually pick up the

phone instead of having one of his staff people? BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

253 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MS. COOMBE: Q. A. Q. A. Q. Page 27, lines 21. Yes. Through page 28, line 8. Right. If you can read that to yourself and let me know A. Well, you know, typically one of the staff people

would be the point of contact, but since about 2004, I had regular -- more regular conversations with Senator Bruno. Q. there? A. Q. Yes. I would like to direct you to page 27. MR. LOWELL: MS. COOMBE: Can you tell me which one? Yes, the first one. Do you still have your grand jury transcript up

when you're done please. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Page what -- page 27? Yup. Line 21.

Twenty-one, yup. Through 28, line 8. Right. Yes. I see what I said.

Did you have a chance to read that yourself,

Mr. Gluchowski? A. Q. Yes. Did I ask you these questions and did you give BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

254 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you? A. He asked me if -- well, what he said was that A. Q. A. Q. these answers. A. Q. Yes. I still have to read them for the record,

Mr. Gluchowski. A. Q. Okay. Question: Was it unusual for Senator Bruno to Answer: Yes. Question: Answer: He

call you directly himself?

normally used his staff to place a call? it unusual in 2004?

Well, was

We had a series of phone calls back and

forth over contracts that I wanted to have drafted, and so it was not unheard of that he would call me, but it was unusual. I would say, you know, like maybe once every two, And so this was

three months we would have a conversation.

not a frequent occurrence, but the reason I wrote the note wasn't just because he called. Did I ask you those questions? Yes. And did you give those answers? That's very accurate. What did Senator Bruno say to you when he called

Wright Investors Services or someone from Wright Investors Services asked him to call Jerry Comer of the IBEW because the -- Wright was making its final presentation to the IBEW BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

255 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 he dealt with. Q. Was Wright Investors asking Senator Bruno to put

in a good word for Wright with Mr. Comer? A. Q. That was my understanding. Did the IBEW have any interest in legislation

pending before the New York State Legislature at this time? A. Yes. At that time they had a very particular And that's why I thought it was significant to

legislation.

advise him against making that contact. Q. A. What was that legislation? Well, it was something generically referred to as

pilot light bill, and it's a bill that had to do with whether or not licensed plumbers and electricians would be required to go on a call, when a utility got word from a customer that there was some malfunction with the heating system or electrical system, that it was not the utility's responsibility to fix. So the unions -- the bottom line was

the unions would benefit from the bill. Q. How did you learn that IBEW had an interest in the

pilot light bill? A. Through my role as counsel to the rules committee,

I reviewed bills in June, typically last -- well, from about June 1st to the end of session, which was usually around June 21st, I would review bills and present them to members of the rules committee, who would then weigh in on BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

256 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the staff analysis. So I would present the staff analysis

position with respect to the bill, and members of the rules committee would either agree or disagree, and the bill would pass or not pass depending on the results of that meeting. And we used a document which we called the annotated calendar to summarize what the bill did. And on the

annotated calendar is a field for support and opposition. And I recall that the IBEW was listed in one or the other, I can't remember if they opposed it or they supported it, but they were active in whatever side they were on, all the utilities were against. So through that experience, this

bill coming before the Legislature for a number of years, probably at least five years in a row. I, I was familiar

with the bill and with IBEW's position on the bill. Q. A. What did you tell Senator Bruno? I told him I didn't think it was a good idea for

him to make that contact. Q. Did you tell Senator Bruno that IBEW had an

interest in the pilot light legislation pending before the New York State Legislature? A. Q. I believe I did. After you prepared this memorandum -- is that how

you described it? A. Q. Yes. Where did you place it? BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

257 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MS. COOMBE: Q. A. Why did you put this document in your CYA drawer? Well, I didn't, I didn't have a file for IBEW or A. Q. A. I placed it in the file draw in my desk. What else did you keep in that draw in your desk? I kept other similar memos, material that I was

holding in the event that an issue ever came from the transaction. Q. A. Did you have a special name for that file? Yes. You'll love this. CYA. CYA file.

(Laughter.) Q. What does that stand for, Mr. Gluchowski? MR. LOWELL: THE COURT: Oh, don't. We all know.

Senator Bruno calls, so it was a logical place to put it because I wanted to have a record in the event that this ever came -- if this ever became an issue. I mean at this

time there was, if not actual notice of investigations going on, then at least a rumor of investigations being considered. So I thought it would be a good idea to make a I was glad he called me.

record of that call. Q.

Other than this telephone call from Senator Bruno

that you've just talked about, did Senator Bruno ever consult with you regarding whether he could contact a particular union official? BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

258 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. No, I don't recall that he ever did. Do you know Ed Bartholomew? Yes. Have you ever heard Mr. Bartholomew talk about

Wright Investors Services? A. Q. A. Yes. What were the circumstances? I was in Ken Riddett's office, not for the purpose

of a meeting with Ed Bartholomew and Ken Riddett, but I was doing something else when Ed came into the office and had a conversation with Ken Riddett about some union issue. Ed

Bartholomew worked on union issues and labor issues for the Senate majority counsel and program staff. And he and Ken

were having a conversation that involved some union business and Wright. But beyond that, I really don't know much about

what transpired. Q. Did Mr. Bartholomew express any concern to

Mr. Riddett? A. Right, yes, he did. He was, he was concerned over

something, but I'm not sure what. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Is your grand jury transcript still up there? Yes. I would like to direct your attention to page 35. Mm-hmm. Lines 14. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

259 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Yes. Through 25. Right. Have you had a chance to look at that? Yes. Did I ask you these questions and did you give Question: What did Mr. Bartholomew say?

these answers: Answer:

I don't remember specifically but he was concerned

about the relationship with the unions and with Wright having and being selling products for unions. What was his concern? Answer: Question:

Well, I think his concern

was that he not be put in the position of trying to get the unions to listen to Wright's presentation. Question: By

he, you mean Senator Bruno or Mr. Bartholomew? No. Mr. Bartholomew.

Did I ask you those questions? Yes. And did you give those answers? Yes. What was Mr. Riddett's response to

Mr. Bartholomew? A. Q. A. Q. I, I'm -- I don't know. I'm going to direct your attention to page 36. Mm-hmm. Lines 15 -- lines 14 through 17. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

260 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MS. COOMBE: Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Riddett about Senator A. Q. answer. Okay. Did I ask you this question and did you give this Question: What was Mr. Riddett's response to Mr. That he cannot lean on the unions to

Bartholomew?

Answer:

get business for Senator Bruno from him. And actually I would ask you to read on. There

was a clarification that Mr. Bartholomew could not do it. Answer: Right. Right.

Did I ask you those questions and did you give those answers? A. Q. Yes. And just to clarify that for the record, it was

actually lines 15 through 19. MS. COOMBE: grand jury transcript? THE COURT: You may. Your Honor, may I retrieve the

Bruno's contacts with labor officials on behalf of Wright Investors Services? A. Q. Yes. Could you put the following events in order for us Your conversation with Mr. Riddett, the

chronologically:

conversation that you overheard between Mr. Riddett and Mr. Bartholomew, and the call from Senator Bruno regarding BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

261 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MS. COOMBE: Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm going to give you your grand I would like to direct your the IBEW contact? A. It's difficult. I believe the first matter was

the IBEW call.

Then I believe I had conversations with

Mr. Riddett, both about that call and the fact that Wright was doing business with unions. And I think the last thing

was the Ed Bartholomew meeting with Ken Riddett. Q. A. Were they all about the same time? I -- yeah, I, I think there were within months, That's, that's what I remember.

within a month or two. Q.

Before Mr. Riddett spoke to you about the fact

that Senator Bruno was contacting labor unions, did you know that Senator Bruno was contacting unions on behalf of Wright Investors Services? A. Well, either I knew then, if that was the first in

that chronology, or I knew when Senator Bruno asked me about IBEW. MS. COOMBE: THE COURT: May I approach, your Honor? You may.

jury transcript again.

attention please to page 37, lines 8 through 38, line 5, and after you have a chance to read that, just let me know. A. Q. Okay. Line 5. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY To what line on 38?

262 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 answers? A. Q. Yes. Does that help you remember that the conversation A. Q. Okay. All right? Did I ask you these questions ask did Question: What is your recollection Answer: Well, I

you give these answer:

of about what order those events occurred?

think, I think that the document, the note I made from May 5th of 2006 was -- that was around the same time as the Ed Bartholomew slash Ken Riddett conversation, but I can't recall which came first. And the other conversation

that I had with Ken Riddett about Wright was earlier. Question: Question: You can't remember exactly? When they occurred now? Answer: No. No. Question:

Answer:

Do you remember how much earlier the conversation with Mr. Riddett was? Answer: No. Probably not, probably not

too much earlier because my recollection was that this became news worthy, and that's how I found out about it, or it was just like everything was happening at the same time, you know what I mean by that. That's not a good answer, but

what I mean is that the, the significance of Wright and the unions bubbled to the surface around the same time, so I think that they were all pretty problematic. Did I ask you those questions? Did you give those

with Mr. Riddett was the first thing in that chain of BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

263 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 events? A. Well, it -- you know, that's what I said, but I

don't really remember the exact order at this time. Q. When Mr. Riddett spoke to you about the fact that

Mr. Senator Bruno was contacting labor unions, did you know that Senator Bruno was contacting unions on behalf of Wright Investors Services? A. Q. No. What, if anything, did Mr. Riddett tell you he had

concluded about the propriety of Senator Bruno's contacts with union officials on behalf of Wright Investors Services? A. Well, the sense was that, with respect to public

unions, it was problematic, but with respect to unions that were not public unions, it was less problematic. Q. A. All right. What is a public union?

Well, I always thought a public union referred to

a union like the -- was it professional employees federation, PEF, or CSEA. Q. A. Represented public employees.

And what is a private, a nonpublic union then? Ah, that would be like the plumbers, the

electrical workers, or unions that were not, were not getting public money. Q. What was the issue you said it was problematic for

Mr. -- for Senator Bruno to contact -- let me rephrase my question. You said that it was -- Mr. Riddett had expressed BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

264 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to you that it was his opinion that it was problematic for Senator Bruno to contact public unions. Do you have an

understanding of why that was problematic? A. Well, I don't think that it's Ken Riddett saying I think those were my

that he thought this was problematic. words. Q.

Was that based on a conversation you had with

Mr. Riddett? A. Q. Right. All right. And if you could explain to us,

please, how -- why it was that contact with public unions could be problematic? A. Well, it was my belief at the time that public

unions presented more issues to be resolved, in that they typically, in my experience, had more matters before the Legislature. Q. All right. And you said that nonpublic unions What was an issue for a nonpublic

were less problematic. union? A.

If they had specific legislation before the

Legislature that would benefit that union in a way that wasn't proportional to the benefit of all of the members of that group or business. public unions too. But the same test would be held for

I mean it would have to be some specific

concern that arose from specific legislation. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

265 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Did Mr. Riddett express to you that if unions were

public unions, it would be inappropriate because they had so much legislation pending before the Legislature? A. Yeah. We, we -- that was part of the sense of

that conversation, yes. Q. A. Q. Is that what Mr. Riddett said to you? Yes. And did Mr. Riddett also say to you but if they

were nonpublic unions, then the question would be whether the union had a particular legislation that they have an interest in? A. Q. issues? A. Q. these -A. Well, let me qualify that. Other than the No. Did Mr. Riddett talk to Senator Bruno about Yes. Did you ever talk to Senator Bruno about these Is that what he said?

conversation with Senator Bruno about Jerry Comer. Q. A. Q. Right. Right. Other than that? No.

Are you aware of if Mr. Riddett talked to Senator

Bruno about this distinction between public and nonpublic unions? A. I don't, I don't know if he did or he didn't. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

266 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. I'm going to direct your attention to page

33, please. A. Q. Mm-hmm. Line 16 through 21. I'm sorry, just lines 22

through page 34, line 15. A. Q. Mm-hmm. Mr. Gluchowski, did I ask you these questions and Question: To your knowledge

did you give these answers:

did Mr. Riddett ever talk to Senator Bruno about these restrictions? Answer: I believe he did. Question: Why do

you believe that?

Answer:

From conversations that I had

with Ken Riddett, I believe that he had conversations with Senator Bruno about the, the issue of labor unions having an interest in legislation and his private business relationship that might involve union activity. Question:

Did Mr. Riddett also talk to Senator Bruno about public unions? Answer: I think so. I assume so, but I really

don't know this because I wasn't at those conversations. Question: But you do believe they occurred? Answer: I

believe though occurred from conversations I had with Ken Riddett. So it was my impression that Ken had talked to

Senator Bruno about the union issue. Did I ask you those questions and did you give those answers? A. Yes. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

267 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Do you know if Mr. Senator Bruno ever received any

credit from Wright Investors Services for referring union clients? A. Q. No, I don't. Do you know that Senator Bruno's compensation at

Wright Investors Services was linked to his success in referring unions to Wright Investors Services? A. Q. No, I didn't know that. Did Senator Bruno ever give you any details about

what he did for Wright Investors Services? A. Q. No. Did he ever give you a list of union officials he

had contacted on behalf of Wright Investors Services? A. Q. No. But I wouldn't expect him to.

Other than the conversation with Senator Bruno

about IBEW, did Senator Bruno either directly or indirectly ever ask you to determine whether a union had business before the New York State Legislature or New York State? A. Q. I don't recall that he ever did. Did Senator Bruno ever ask you whether he should

recuse himself from voting on legislation beneficial to a union whose pension or annuity fund was a client of Wright Investors Services? A. Q. No. Did Senator Bruno ever ask you whether he should BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

268 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 refrain from taking direct or indirect action on matters benefiting a union whose pension or annuity fund was a client of Wright Investors Services? A. Q. No. Did you ever tell the ethics committee, the

legislative ethics committee that Senator Bruno was contacting union officials on behalf of Wright Investors Services? A. Q. No. Did Senator Bruno ever tell the legislative ethics

committee that he was contacting union officials on behalf of Wright Investors Services? A. Q. I never heard that he did. Did anyone on Senator Bruno's staff every tell the

legislative ethics committee that he was contacting union officials on behalf of Wright Investors Services? A. Q. Not to my knowledge. Did Senator Bruno or anyone on his staff ever tell

other senators that he was contacting union officials on behalf of Wright Investors Services? A. Q. A. I, I really don't have any way of knowing that. Are you aware of that? No, I'm not. MS. COOMBE: THE COURT: May I approach, your Honor? Yes.

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

269 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MS. COOMBE: Q. Mr. Gluchowski, I'm handing you Government's

Exhibit GT 1 -A. Q. Mm-hmm. -- GT 12, GT 13, GT 14, GT 17, GT 21, and GT 25.

Mr. Gluchowski, have you ever seen any of these agreements before? And I should clarify, have you ever seen any of

these agreements before the investigation began? A. I have not seen GT 1 before the investigation And I've seen GT 13 before,

began, nor have I seen GT 12.

but I can't remember if it was before the investigation or after. GT 14 looks similar. I don't recall seeing GT 17

before the investigation.

And GT 21 is another letter

extending an agreement that, I know I've seen it before, but I can't remember if I saw it prior to the investigation or not. Q. A. Which one was that, Mr. Gluchowski? Twenty-one. Which is one of the extenders. And

GT 25, I would say the same. can't recall at what point. Q.

I have seen it before, but I

Mr. Gluchowski, do you remember seeing any of

those documents before the investigation began? A. I, I don't specifically remember seeing any. I

know I've seen some of them before, but I don't know at what point. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

270 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Do you remember seeing -- do you recognize these

as all documents regarding companies affiliated with Leonard Fassler? A. Q. Yes. Do you remember seeing any agreements between

Senator Bruno and any company affiliated with Mr. Fassler before the investigation began? A. Well, when I was asked that question in the grand And I had heard that I wrote a memo

jury, my answer was no.

about, about some of these documents, but I've never seen that memo. Q. A. Q. A. Q. So I don't know if I had or I hadn't. Who did you hear you wrote a memo from? I don't remember. Was it someone on the defense team? No. Did you testify in the grand jury that you did not

remember seeing any of these documents before the investigation -A. Q. A. Well, no. -- began? It was, it was somebody on the defense team. Yes.

That I, that I had done a memo about some of these Fassler agreements. And I did not recall that at the time I met So I don't, you know, I don't want to

with the grand jury.

say now that I never knew anything about that because, BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

271 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 apparently, I did, if there is such a memo. Q. When you testified in the grand jury, you

testified that you did not remember seeing any of these documents except potentially in connection with the investigation. A. Q. That's correct. And what's this memo is that you're referring to?

Have you seen it? A. I don't -- it was -- no, I haven't seen it. I've

never seen it, but I'm told that it has to do with some analysis of some of the Fassler businesses, and it references a conversation that I had with Joe Magno, which I didn't recall, but now I do. Q. And that's all I know.

Was that in connection with preparing for your

testimony that someone on the defense team brought this to your attention? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Yes. Was this brought to your attention recently? Yes. This week? Ah, yes. Other than that particular document, do you know

what document -- what company that document is referring to? A. Q. I thought it was Sage, but I'm not sure. Do you remember whether it was Microknowledge? BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

272 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. It -- well, I think it was more than one. I think

it was probably Brunswick Equity, Brunswick Knowledge and Microknowledge. Q. A. Okay. And I know Sage was involved at some point, but

maybe Sage was earlier. Q. All right. But Brunswick Equities and

Microknowledge, that's what you -- that's what those memoranda are about? A. Q. I believe so. All right. And none of these documents talk about

Microknowledge? A. Q. A. Q. No. They don't talk about Brunswick Equities? No. You don't know what relationship, if any, Sage has

to the memoranda that the defense team informed you of this week? A. Right. Yeah. You know, if I could see the

document, it would probably refresh my recollection and I would better know what I'm talking about. But I, I, I don't

recall seeing these before the investigation now that I recall that it was Microknowledge, Brunswick Knowledge and Brunswick Equities. MS. COOMBE: Your Honor, I'm about to start a

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

273 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Honor? THE COURT: Yes. The witness is excused. At moment please. MR. PERICAK: Is the witness excused, your so... THE COURT: minutes is okay. It's two minutes of 5. So two new area of questioning. THE COURT: MS. COOMBE: Would you like me to continue? No. I have no idea what time it is

We'll adjourn until 9:00 tomorrow morning,

ladies and gentlemen. (Jury excused at 4:58 PM.) THE COURT: The parties will remain for

some point at the convenience of counsel, I would like to see the original of Defendant's Exhibits C 12 A, C 12 A, C 14 A, and C -- what have I got? unredacted C 12 A? yesterday. MR. LOWELL: give you something. This morning Mr. Law asked me to A redacted and an

Is that what you were telling me about

I gave you the complete C 12 A, I gave

you a suggestion how you just get the form out of it, and the complete C 14 A. have. THE COURT: So then your original is going to They're copies because that's all we

look no different than the copy? BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

274 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 points. the first time. MR. LOWELL: So -- but I can tell you that those boxes. MR. LOWELL: Correct. Although I believe the The boxes

originals may be in the boxes that FBI has. boxes. MS. COOMBE: Was it Monday? MR. PERICAK: MS. COOMBE: Monday.

Yeah, the FBI took custody of

When we became aware of them for

yes C 14 -- sorry -- C 12 A you have the complete version of. As well as a suggestion. And C 14 A you have the

complete version of. THE COURT: All right. Well, I have two

It's highly unlikely I would admit these documents

in their entirety, but I might consider the admission of some portion of them. But I need to see -- I can't tell And then I

from the Xerox copy what it is I'm looking at.

would want the parties to consult with one another over this issue, and don't hold me to the facts, we're up to 64, so I'm not bad with them, but don't hold me with precision. some point with start of the passage of the Ethics Reform Act with the financial disclosure forms, up through whatever ending year will be the ultimate packet of disclosure forms that are in evidence in this case. So whatever the starting At

date is, then whatever the ending date is, it's the period BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

275 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to help. within which those exhibits pertain. Obviously, each

year -- I'm familiar with financial disclosure reports and I know what I'm looking at, and the requirements are similar to those that I'm familiar with. So that each May 15th is I'm not

the filing date for the preceding calendar year.

sure at what point I have the statute and I'm not sure at what point I have the financial disclosure form and I'm not sure that there are variables in that process, so I would like the parties to consult over that. If I have a sample

form that the parties are happy represents the sample form, though I know I have one probably some that are in evidence, though I don't have much of anything consistent with the pretrial order. But that's okay, that's another matter for I've given up. Everybody is

another trial on another day. trying to help me I understand. MR. LOWELL: I hope it helps. THE COURT: MR. LOWELL:

Judge, can I -- the C 14 A, just

Go ahead. My understanding every year

after the law was passed every member received a copy of the Public Officer's Law. We have 20 of them, or however many,

but we didn't introduce them because who wants 20 of them. And every year they sent out an instruction form. So we So

gave you the first that we had in the first category. you're right that that's what happened.

We can give you a

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

276 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 better copy or we can go search out the original, but the original of 12 A is every page that you presently have and the original of 14 A is every page that you presently have. THE COURT: Here's all I'm saying to you.

While they may have -- in other words, I'm not sure what use anybody intends to make of them. As you already know, I'm I'm not submitting a

not submitting the law to the jury.

copy of the Public Officer's Law to the jury unless, of course, because we've already heard from Mr. Riddett, and I'm not sure he ever read did, we're now hearing from Mr. Gluchowski, I do not know what he's going to say about it, though I expect we're going to get into that area of inquiry with him. I have no idea whether Mr. Bruno intends It might

to testify and whether he's going to tell us.

alter my view depending on what the testimony is as to what I would admit and what I would not in that regard. I

certainly have no intention at this juncture on the basis of the testimony that I've heard of admitting the Public Officer's Law, but it is something the parties are going to have to think about at some point as to what it is you want me to instruct the jury on the issue of the Public Officer's Law. Because, ultimately, I am responsible for their

understanding of what the requirements of that law are. Which I recognize is a very different issue than what somebody else's understanding of that law may have been BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

277 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which might have generated advice to one person or another. So I understand the variables that are associated with this issue, but everybody needs to understand we're going to have to come up with some suggestion. To me, ultimately, it will

be my decision as to what I'm going to instruct the jury on. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. this is all premature, so I mean I'm not looking for an answer at this point. I see a raging debate, in particular with Mr. Riddett, as to what a particular subject matter covers and doesn't cover in terms of the questions that were asked. I've looked at the financial disclosure form, which is similar to those I've seen in the past, and there's no doubt in my mind Mr. Riddett can't read or there's no doubt in my mind Mr. Riddett doesn't understand the instructions based upon the answers he gave during the testimony, as I would understand it. Which I'm not sure is relevant to any issue In other words, I And

that ultimately is going to be decided.

understand the parameters of a good faith defense and what the jury will be instructed on that. you it's going to take some care. That's why I'm telling

But I can't be in a

situation where the jury comes back because the parties have argued and the jury is then asking for some legal instruction in that regard as to precisely what's required or what's not. I understand the care that's going to have

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

278 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to be crafted with that because that's not necessarily the issue that's in front of them. It's precisely the same

issues that are at play with the SEC, the Public Officer's Law, and any other law that may come up. have. I'm not sure any

There was a statement earlier by -- about a FCC And I hope But I have

regulation, but I know he meant to say SEC. we're not going to get into FCC regulations. some concern.

And that's all I'm doing is expressing it to

you at this point so that everybody can deal with it in the time you have available to you as I'm suggesting now these issues may come up. as to what I admit. They will have a bearing, by the way, I don't have a problem, I don't

believe, with admitting a set of instructions and a form to the jury so they have something in front of them as to what it is that everybody was dealing with on this issue. I am terribly reluctant, although all sides agree. Though And even

then I'm not -- I concur with you, even if you agree, that I submit a copy of a statute to them without some foundation from a witness to do that. I'm not sure I would do that. I wasn't concerned with

That's why I limit it to carefully. your questions.

I was more concerned with the way the

answers were parsed with Mr. Riddett than I was -- you were intending in my view to establish his understanding of the law and to find out from him what he told people based on his understanding. And I'm just clarifying for the record,

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

279 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 point? MR. LOWELL: THE COURT: Of course. I understand exactly what you you? THE COURT: MR. LOWELL: Please. The four points you made? As to I would permit that. I have no difficulty with that at all.

But by the same token, as I sit here and listen to his testimony, and he holds himself out as an expert as to what that form requires or not, that's precisely why I wouldn't let him tell anybody what that law says. MR. LOWELL: I understand. Can I respond to

Exhibit 12 A what I elicited as testimony was the fact that every year the committee sent out the copy of the law and the instruction book. THE COURT: MR. LOWELL: Yes. And through the colloquy we had,

I asked whether the form, the actual form was part of the law. What's odd, your Honor, is that the form is actually As opposed to commanding the committee

in the law itself.

to write the form, the form was part of the law. Mr. Riddett testified it was the subject of a great deal of negotiation. it in the law. I -- my understanding is that's why they put 12 A that I gave you -THE COURT: Can I just stop you on each

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

280 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 amazement. just told me. What I'm saying about that is that that form

could differ each year. MR. LOWELL: THE COURT: MR. LOWELL: Yes. I don't know if it does. I was going to tell you that

that every year it was exactly the same in the period of time that we're talking, literally. THE COURT: As long as everybody concurs with

that observation as a foundational basis, I'm not going to have any problem with a copy of the form. MR. LOWELL: And, interestingly, the reason

it didn't change from year to year was because the actual form was part of the law. So for somebody to change the And that was

form, they would have had to change the law.

something I guess they didn't want to get into one way or the other. Except for this year, by the way, they're

discussing what's called the Bruno law because it's now going to make changes in what it is that's supposed to have happened. And it didn't pass yet. THE COURT: You can't help but see my

Yesterday I had to wonder whether they're

mailing that to one another. MR. LOWELL: As to 12 A, the part that I did

redact -- and, you know, I'll talk to the Government to make sure it's right. And then you decide of course. It's just

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

281 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 instructions. 14 A -THE COURT: We've covered the form and the the form, that's 12 A. THE COURT: MR. LOWELL: It's just the form 12 A. Just the form. The cover says

Public Officer's Law but because it includes the actual form, and all we've given you is the actual form. Fourteen

A is the instruction book which we moved, there was no objection, and it's in evidence. was the same every year. exhibits. THE COURT: Is the Government satisfied that It's the instruction that

Now, that's as to the two

the instructions are the same as were there every year? MR. PERICAK: I haven't looked at the

instructions every year, so I don't know the answer to that, but I would say with respect to the form, your Honor, the actual filled out forms are in evidence, so there's no need for an extra form, I would say. MR. LOWELL: I thought it was important to

make the point in response to Mr. Pericak that it just didn't come about that this form was pulled out of thin air. It's part of the law. THE COURT: MR. LOWELL: I have no qualms with that point. So that's as to 12 A. And as to

It's the statute that causes me --

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

282 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LOWELL: Now move to the second point. I

know you won't be surprised, I agree with what you say a good deal of the time, maybe a vast majority of the time, but as discovered not on one of the time. As to Mr. Riddett

as to negotiating on the law, I mean here's what's going to press into the next issue you have when we get into our case. That's this. We already in preliminary battles

raised the issue that how laws that are complicated or confusing, or whatever, whatever the testimony is, is filled out is relevant. It's relevant. It's relevant for the two

reasons put in our papers.

I'm not going to argue it here.

But Mr. Riddett, as Mr. Gluchowski gave the same advice to not just Mr. Bruno but to everybody, everybody who asked at the conference you saw the -THE COURT: MR. LOWELL: THE COURT: I permitted you to ask that. There was a reason, your Honor. I didn't permit you to get into

individual financial forms or any other issue by any other senator. MR. LOWELL: THE COURT: That's where we're at. But the extent to which you asked

whether the advice was given was consistent from that given by Mr. Riddett, I permitted that question. MR. LOWELL: And then Mr. Pericak asked

Mr. Riddett, among other questions, look at the column BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

283 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 called description of the services. Consulting. Does that

adequately express what the law says -- not the law -- what the manual requires? questions. Right? That was the whole line of

Judge, that's why we believe it is relevant,

that if you look at all the other forms and pick any year, doesn't matter, we picked 2004 in our proffer to the government and the Court, if you look at every other form, question 4, question 5, and question 13, and look at what every member of the Assembly and every member of the Senate who are advised by the same lawyers are putting down for question 4, question 5, question 13, you will not be surprised. And that's the proffer we've made in our papers,

because this issue is, is Mr. Bruno in an intent to defraud, i.e. an intent to deceive based on for a category called description where he puts down consultant as opposed to investment adviser or investment adviser as opposed to investment broker or Winthrop as opposed to Winthrope with an e or any of what the government has raised, then there's a lot of things that inform that. One of the things that

informs that, his understanding, as Mr. Riddett will say, this is what I advised. Another thing that will inform is

to show what Mr. Bruno did is consistent with the practice of every other legislator. on that. THE COURT: Yes, you have. And I'm telling And we've given you the case law

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

284 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you, as long as there is a foundation for that, perhaps, perhaps not. Depends on what the foundation is. MR. LOWELL: get to the second issue. THE COURT: see the telepathy. about -MR. LOWELL: THE COURT: MR. PERICAK: we're on that second point? form requires. I think I've learned. -- about foundation. All right. I understand. Just wanted to

You asked about the law itself. We both are on the same -- I can

And we both know what I'm talking

May I respond just as long as My question was not what the

I asked, it says description, was that an That goes to intent, in my view. So

accurate description?

Whatever somebody thinks the law and the form requires. I didn't ask what the form -- what the law requires. MR. LOWELL: No, he did not. I agree.

But,

look, this is a very, very difficult issue, and especially after 5:00. So all I would say on that issue, Judge, is.

As to intent, this is an odd case, because it's sort of a derivative. Intent. Intent in part. Nobody has testified We

that Mr. Bruno was the one who made certain decisions. are putting Mr. Bruno on trial in part by whatever Mr. Riddett did, Mr. Gluchowski did, and all the other people who have -THE COURT: Many of them.

Pat Stackrow is

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

285 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 responsible for. MR. LOWELL: Right. A number of others. So,

okay, I have to understand we have to defend that proposition. And we're trying our best. But in doing so,

again, we'll refer back to our papers, I think the issue is that if these people are giving advice, etcetera, and you have Mr. Bruno on trial in November of '09 on an issue of intent to deceive, based on the form, then if I can, I I'll lay the foundation, or try hard, if he's writing consultant, somebody is else is writing consultant and doesn't list their client, that is germane. If he's writing the name of

a company and isn't saying 14 lines about the company and you look at some of these forms and you see that they put less. You saw all those attachments A, B, C, D, and E. He's got to be So I

Maybe it will surprise you, maybe it won't.

one of three legislators who do that in such detail. think that's apparent. you at the right tame. in our papers. THE COURT: MR. LOWELL: I read the papers. I know you did.

But we'll have to explain that to That's the third issue raised. It's

I know you did.

But now you see why we made the proffer. makes more sense perhaps. THE COURT: MR. LOWELL: No.

At least now it

I understood the proffer.

And then as to --

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

286 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is. talking about. MR. PERICAK: THE COURT: I understand. But I -three. THE COURT: trial I don't understand. everybody thinks. MR. LOWELL: For me the issue of broodmare Isn't anything happening in this Not one. Regardless of what

and foal, that's just more that -- it's a lot for me. MR. PERICAK: Do I get to chime in on point

The foundation is just a small point, another reason Have to show that they are in the same

for exclusion. position.

THE COURT:

That's not the foundation I'm

I understand what a foundation

And we're going to argue this until the cows come home. It's up

And there's no need for me to address it right now.

to all of you to figure out what I believe the foundation is. it. I know what it is. And I may not. And when I hear it, I may permit

The other side of that coin is, he who

jumps off the bridge doesn't justify the other 49 or 99 who elect to do so. knowledge. It depends on who did what based on what Who did what based on If

That's the foundation.

what knowledge.

If -- let me just give you a what if.

you were to view the evidence to say these forms were prepared by Pat Stackrow with no input by the Senator whatsoever other than his signature, somebody stuck under BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

287 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 his nose one or two days before the filing deadline, and any information that Pat Stackrow relied upon in terms of how to fill the form out came from Ken Riddett, who doesn't understand what paragraph a particular set of instructions may pertain to, and if both of those people are the ones who provided the guidance to the Senator upon which he relied, then there is one foundation. If, on the other hand,

somebody were to say, I attended a training seminar, I sat down with every legislator in the Legislature, and I had a discussion with them about how to fill out paragraph four, and I relied upon what they told me. to hear that. I know I'm not going I would be

I know I'm not going to hear it.

surprised if I do.

But that's why I can't rule until

somebody lays whatever foundation they believe is appropriate and then moves on the basis of that foundation. All I'm saying to you is that I don't have any problem over a form and over instructions. Because I fully expect, given

the way the testimony has gone thus far from both sides, that that may or may not cause some confusion with the jury. And, obviously, I'm responsible for taking care of any confusion they've got. And as I think we all recognize,

regardless of our view about what the subject of the proof must ultimately be, in light of the definition of mail and wire fraud, regardless of what one or another of us think is relevant in that regard, I think it's crystal clear, because BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

288 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I wouldn't have allowed it in otherwise, that those things constitute evidence of whether or not there was an intent to engage in a scheme to defraud. to a collateral argument. disclosure form. Therefore, it clearly leads

Let's forget the financial

That's too sensitive an issue in light of Let's deal with one that's

where we're at in the trial. easier.

Wright's responsibility is the SEC disclosure The same issue is there. It's not what the It's did somebody

requirements.

disclosure requirements are or are not. do something to subvert them.

And if so, is that any That's the only basis Which is what I

evidence of an intent to defraud.

upon which the evidence could be admitted. meant by limiting instruction.

I mean I'm certainly going

to tell that jury I think, though I'm not going to prejudge that either until I hear from the parties, because I'm not clear what everybody thinks is at play in this indictment and what isn't, but it's my current belief that it's irrelevant whether somebody violated the SEC or not, but it is relevant to what somebody might have done by way of conduct, statements, or otherwise in that regard as it constitutes evidence of an intent to defraud. Now, how are

you going to communicate that to the jury unless they have some fundamental understanding of what you're talking about with the SEC issue? You see? So I'm going to have to be But I'm going to have to

the one to explain it to them.

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

289 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 explain that with a good deal of care. Which is probably

going to include an instruction similar to Mr. Bruno is not on trial for having violated any SEC regulation. And that's

not the issue you, the jury, are being called upon to decide. I would think that would be part of the instruction I don't want to prejudge But I am saying Because you are

I would give them, I would think.

it without hearing from the parties.

there's some sensitivity with all of this.

right, Mr. Lowell, that this trial wraps all those issues very closely. And you got to walk a very fine line. Again,

I want to tell you, I was not trying to foreclose your examination yesterday. I was more listening to the witness And it's in this

as he was responding to your question.

context as I've just described it that I'm walking that very fine line. MR. LOWELL: I understood the last point at

the minute that it happened, and I still understand it. THE COURT: MR. LOWELL: Yeah. And, you know, as you've said to

all of us, you can control the questions and sometimes you can't control the answers. THE COURT: Precisely. Well, sometimes we

don't want to, as Cody Bryant's brother said. MR. LOWELL: Cody Bryant's brother. And then

as to the last point, we'll have to have lots of BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

290 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Supreme Court. MR. LOWELL: But don't you think this is the Because, you marvelous. conversations about the integration, as you just said, you used your fists on the hands and showed how they were interlocking, which is a very good symbol. It's very hard

to figure out on the state ethics disclosure form issue, which is clearly stated in the indictment that's what it's wrapped around, question 4, question 5, question 9, question 13, blah, blah, blah. This is what is alleged to, be this

is how, you know, Mr. Bruno had both the intent and scheme to defraud. I'm not going to -- last point. Again,

Mr. Riddett was there. THE COURT: It really is. Never seen -- this case is just 99 times I have the defense

arguing there's no way they can -- it's prejudicial to allow them to offer any evidence of some underlying violation. Here, I have exactly the reverse. The defense is saying

it's in the indictment, they got to prove it. MR. LOWELL: Well, as you know, Judge, this

is -- it's one out of 99 who knows what the Supreme Court will do. debated. THE COURT: No because in this case I am the But I mean that isn't very much the issue being

reason why this is being discussed so rapidly?

know, we put forward the proposition that when you are a BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

291 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 federal official -- I'm sorry -- when you are a state official being charged with a federal crime of honest services, that it has to have an underlying violation of a state law. Plus the mail or the wire. THE COURT: I know. I understand that's your

position, and I know you want to re-litigate it, but I've already ruled on it three times, Rybicki, which is the law of this Court, because I am bound as to what that court says in Manhattan because they adopt the majority of the courts in the country which are contrary in your view that you don't have to allege and prove an underlying law and violation. MR. LOWELL: Yes. You have to find the duty

exists somewhere in the corners of the State of New York or else we're inventing the obligation of the whole cloth. Let's please not forget that you're thinking whether or not in a perfect world the prosecutors needed to charge this case the way they did. They went to the grand jury with a If we

particular document, they presented that document.

give credence to the grand jury process, that document meant what it said, and it said you violated the duty of honest services in the following ways. And they not only quoted They didn't just

the Public Officer's Law, they set it out. set it out -THE COURT:

Can I cut you short?

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

292 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LOWELL: THE COURT: -- they put out 4, 5, and 13 -Can I cut you short? You're all

beating on a guy who understands the arguments of the parties. No need. As I have said before. And in the end,

I'm not ruling on this. argument.

In the end, you may win this But

But not because it's in the indictment.

because the Government opened the door to that in their proof. Which is why I have permitted the breadth and scope That is precisely my point. And so I'm sitting here That

of the response I have. barn door is wide open.

fundamentally understanding my obligation, which is despite the disputes and the views of the parties, which differ here, ultimately, I think you would all recognize, you won't agree as to what I'm going to say, but you all recognize it's my obligation to say it, which is to tell the jury what the law is. it. MR. LOWELL: THE COURT: And the last point. And I know that I've got to do it So while you are all free to argue, I got to do

very carefully here, so far, based upon the evidence I have heard, so that I can very carefully explain to them what relevance it has and what relevance it does not have. Clearly, I accept and understand your view that the Government has alleged that Mr. Bruno violated the honest services statute by engaging in a scheme to defraud, and BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

293 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they have alleged that he has done that in the following way, one two, three, four, five. MR. LOWELL: THE COURT: Right. And then they have admitted

evidence in their case to establish one, two, three, four, five. I have permitted you to respond. It is inevitable

that, to one degree or another, for instance, the New York State Public Officer's Law and the SEC is going to have to be the recipient of some instruction I give this jury. that's what I'm talking about how it's going to be my obligation to craft that very carefully to put it in perspective for them. Because I happen to believe that I happen to And

their lost on the basis of what they argued. believe their lost. MR. LOWELL:

The one last one for me, your

Honor, on this subject, and I'm not trying to re-litigate our motion, but as you well pointed out, now it's going to come to how we carefully structure all the arguments we put forward on the motion. You ruled. I get it. We'll see.

We have to figure out, they did it one, two, three, four, five, and they've introduced one, two, three, four, five. THE COURT: MR. LOWELL: Sure. And, lastly, because we are

getting close to we're going to have to have your decision, with whatever foundation we can lay, we have provided the BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

294 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 exhibit act. chart. it. Government with the underlying material to show how other legislators are doing what Mr. Bruno in questions 4, 5 and 13 are doing. We've provided a summary chart, because it's And they know it. We've been That's not a

voluminous, under Rule 1006. talking about. surprise to me.

They object to the relevance. I -THE COURT:

Is this another exhibit I've not

yet seen that's going to -MR. LOWELL: Well, we just finished compiling

And I was going to say you have enough homework, but

wouldn't it be a good time to give you the summary chart. THE COURT: Go ahead, give me the summary

It's better then at 5 of 9 when you're seeking to

admit it at 9. MR. LOWELL: We have cleaned up our act. And

Mr. Law has the exhibit list. THE COURT: You haven't cleaned up your

Because I asked you for 12 A B and C and I

didn't get it and I didn't have it. MR. LOWELL: THE COURT: MR. LOWELL: THE COURT: You didn't have it. So revisit your act. We will do that. Let me ask with your permission, Have you given any thought -But...

let me turn to Mr. Thompson.

I know you don't have the ultimate control over this BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

295 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. decision, though I can see what gets delegated to where. Have you given any thought to whether you wish to pursue your double hearsay objections in light of what I have said? MR. THOMPSON: Yes. We do want to pursue

that just as to the documents that we had identified. THE COURT: I knew you were going to tell me

Let me tell you why you've preserved that, to

preserve any and all error that may be apparent on the record which is apparent. It's all ludicrous in light of

the testimony that's come in and you, yourself, have admitted triple, quadruple and five times hearsay, but not over objection. But that having been said, I'll do it. In that regard, you have You

want me to do it, I'll do it. enough to do.

So at some appropriate time, let me share

with the Government what I'm going to want in order to make my final rulings on those exhibits. I'm happy with the rule of completeness. I'm

happy with rules with vicarious admissions in furtherance of 801(d)(2)(D). I'm happy with a full and fair understanding

of the continued application of the business records exception. I'm happy with non-hearsay, though I'm going to Seems to me that

want to hear you about non-hearsay.

99 percent of what they object to is not hearsay in the first place. And it also duplicates, as I said, 62 other

incidents in the record where the same testimony has come BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY

296 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in, so -- a lot by them. That having been said, there is one thing I want from the Government, and I don't need it until you've rested your case, and that is I would like to know what your view of the conspiratorial agreement is under 801(d)(2)(E), which at least as to one of the offers, you offered alternatively under that basis. So what I will be prepared

to do when we reach this issue is to revisit those exhibits, give you my ruling under 801, a pure business record ruling. And then I'll be prepared to tell you under what alternative basis I would have admitted those so that had I permitted the parties to reach those alternatives bases -- basically what I did is I cut you all off after the first one and continued to accept them under that guise, without giving you a fair opportunity to explain to me what alternative bases you might have had for them. All I can share with you Because I've

is I'll be prepared to give you those rulings.

gone back and looked at the exhibits, I've gone back and looked at the testimony, and I've looked the document that was referenced and what other evidence is on the record related to that. But I'm looking for a recitation under

801(d)(2)(E) as to what the scope of the -- or object and scope of the conspiracy is that might -- and it's only related to those documents which are principally related to Wright Investors Services generated materials. BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY It's

297 GLUCHOWSKI - DIRECT - COOMBE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY materials generated out of Senator Bruno's operation, and/or union references. Anything further? MR. LOWELL: Just one. I think we would like

to discuss some timing issues with you, but I would like to not do it on the record just so that we can, before you leave, get a sense of where things at. when -- if you'll give us the minute. THE COURT: MR. LOWELL: THE COURT: So we're done? We're done. Thank you. You'll understand

(Sidebar off the record at 5:32 PM.) (Court adjourned.)

You're Reading a Free Preview

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