Bruno Trial Opening Statements 1103

1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
4
-versus- 09-CR-29
5
JOSEPH L. BRUNO
6
Defendant.
7 ---------------------------------------------
8 TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL *EXCERPT held in and for
9 the United States District Court, Northern District of
10 New York, at the James T. Foley United States Courthouse,
11 445 Broadway, Albany, New York, on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2009,
12 the HON. GARY L. SHARPE, United States District Court Judge,
13 Presiding.
14 *EXCERPT - GOVENMENT/DEFENDANT'S OPENING STATEMENTS
15 APPEARANCES:
16
17 FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
18 UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE - NDNY
19 BY: ELIZABETH C. COOMBE, AUSA and
20 BY: WILLIAM C. PERICAK, AUSA
21 FOR THE DEFENDANT:
22 McDERMOTT, WILL LAW FIRM
23 BY: ABBE D. LOWELL, ESQ. and PAUL M. THOMPSON, ESQ.
24 DREYER, BOYAJIAN LAW FIRM
25 BY: WILLIAM J. DREYER, ESQ. and APRIL M. WILSON, ESQ.

BONNIE J. BUCKLEY, RPR, CRR
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER - NDNY
2
GOVERNMENT OPENING - COOMBE
UNITED STATES v BRUNO 09-CR-29
1
2 (In open court at 2:30 PM...)
3 THE COURT: Miss Coombe, are you ready for
4 your opening statement?
5 MS. COOMBE: I am, your Honor. Thank you.
6 THE COURT: Please.
7 MS. COOMBE: Good afternoon, ladies and
8 gentlemen. This case is about conflicts of interest, it's
9 about failure to disclose conflicts of interest, and it's
10 about concealment of information that might have exposed
11 conflicts of interest. The conflicts of interest at issue
12 in this case relate to more than $3 million of the payments
13 that Senator Bruno received between 1993 and 2006. You will
14 learn that during the time that Senator Bruno received these
15 payments from private parties, he was a New York State
16 Senator, and after January 1 of 1995, when he became the New
17 York State Senate Majority Leader, Senator Bruno was one of
18 the three most powerful men in New York State. You will
19 hear how all kinds of people and parties came to meet with
20 him and his staff; labor unions, private companies, even
21 utilities; all kinds of entities. They came to see Senator
22 Bruno because he had the power to make things happen in New
23 York State.
24 During this trial you will see and hear
25 evidence about how Senator Bruno exploited his official

3
1 position for his own personal enrichment and gain. You will
2 learn about the payments Senator Bruno received. You will
3 learn that in some cases Senator Bruno was paid by people in
4 order to contact others who had business before him. And in
5 other cases, Senator Bruno was paid directly by people who
6 had business before him.
7 You will see and hear evidence that Senator
8 Bruno failed to disclose and, in fact, actually concealed
9 and disguised these contacts and these payments and the
10 resulting conflicts of interest. You will also see and hear
11 evidence that Senator Bruno took official action which
12 benefited the parties he contacted and the parties that were
13 paying him. You will also see and hear evidence that
14 Senator Bruno failed to disclose information to his fellow
15 legislators and to the citizens which they could have used
16 to determine whether Senator Bruno was placing the public
17 interests first, as he was required to do, or whether he was
18 instead placing his own financial self-interest above the
19 public interest.
20 As Judge Sharpe mentioned to you, Senator
21 Bruno is charged with honest services mail and wire fraud.
22 And the Judge has -- will instruct you in more detail about
23 the elements of the offense and he has already instructed
24 you about the elements of the offense. The Government must
25 prove each and every one of those elements beyond a

4
1 reasonable doubt. But a critical issue in this case will be
2 intent. Did Senator Bruno act with the intent necessary to
3 deprive the citizens of their intangible right to his honest
4 services? You will need to determine whether Senator Bruno
5 intended to make full and complete disclosure of the
6 contacts he was making and the payments he was receiving, or
7 whether he instead intended to conceal and disguise
8 conflicts of interest and related information.
9 During the trial you will hear testimony from
10 witnesses and you will see exhibits and that will help you
11 to understand the payments that Senator Bruno received, the
12 official actions that he took which benefited private
13 parties and, finally, for you to determine whether he had
14 the necessary intent to be guilty of honest services mail
15 and wire fraud. I want to give you an overview of some of
16 that evidence. I'm not going to overwhelm you with dozens
17 of documents. The Government will produce the exhibits to
18 you one at a time through witnesses on the witness stand,
19 but I do want to give you a brief guide to some of that
20 evidence, and I'm going to start by talking to you about the
21 payments that Senator Bruno received.
22 I've already mentioned that in some cases
23 Senator Bruno was paid to contact people who had business
24 before him. You will learn that there were two companies
25 that paid Senator Bruno to contact labor union officials in

5
1 order to get their investment business. Now, labor unions
2 have benefit funds for their members. They have pension
3 funds, they have health and welfare funds, and other funds.
4 And one of the jobs of some union officials is to serve as a
5 trustee on those funds to oversee the investment of their
6 union members' money. And you will hear that there's
7 competition from investment advisers across the country to
8 manage money and to earn fees for managing that money.
9 In approximately 1994, Senator Bruno began to
10 contact the heads of unions on behalf of a Connecticut
11 investment adviser whose name is Wright Investors Services.
12 Wright used several different words to describe Senator
13 Bruno's role. They called him an introducer, they called
14 him a referral agent, and they called him a solicitor and
15 also a finder. Regardless of the title used, Senator
16 Bruno's role was clear. His job was to call the heads of
17 unions and to open the door for Wright. He normally
18 contacted the union head normally directly, but sometimes
19 indirectly, and asked them to take a look at Wright or give
20 Wright a fair shake.
21 Between 1994 and 2006, Senator Bruno
22 contacted 15 union heads, and 11 of the funds associated
23 with those unions became Wright clients. As a result of
24 those contacts, Wright paid Senator Bruno approximately
25 $1.3 million. You will learn that an Albany investment bank

6
1 and investment broker McGinn Smith & Company also received
2 some commissions for executing brokerage rights in
3 connection with some of these accounts that Senator Bruno
4 referred to Wright, and you will learn that McGinn Smith &
5 Company paid Senator Bruno approximately $630,000 between
6 1993 and 2005.
7 During the trial, you will hear from the
8 witness stand many of the union heads who Senator Bruno
9 contacted. They will testify for you about how their unions
10 routinely and regularly had interests before the
11 Legislature. Not only did they have interests in
12 legislation, but they also had interests in obtaining state
13 money for their members, and they knew Senator Bruno because
14 of these interests. You will hear that the competition for
15 investment advisers was fierce and that many of them will
16 tell you, the union heads, that they were constantly
17 bombarded with calls from investment advisers. And you will
18 learn that Senator Bruno's calls were different. You will
19 also hear from staff members who worked at the Senate who
20 met with the union firms. They will be able to tell you
21 about the legislative interests of the unions and the
22 interests that the unions had in state money. You will also
23 see documents regarding Senator Bruno's relationship with
24 Wright, and including documents written by Senator Bruno's
25 primary contact with Wright, a salesman whose name is

7
1 Kenneth Singer. You will see in a document that Mr. Singer
2 wrote regarding some potential clients in Niagara Falls, New
3 York. Everything depends on their perception of how hard
4 you win/fight for them on issues in Niagara Falls and that
5 the main issue is the helicopter ride in Niagara Falls. You
6 will learn about the helicopter ride, how that related to
7 Senator Bruno's official duties, and about the mixing of
8 Senator Bruno's private business interests and his public
9 duties.
10 Now, I want to mention, as an investment
11 adviser, Wright is regulated by the Securities Exchange
12 Commission. You will learn that for the first four years
13 that Senator Bruno contacted union heads on behalf of
14 Wright, SEC rules required that the union officials he
15 contacted who decided to have their unions become Wright
16 clients receive a written document that informed them of
17 Senator Bruno's role with Wright and the fact that Senator
18 Bruno was being paid as a result of the business that they
19 had given to Wright. You will hear evidence that these
20 written acknowledgments were never obtained from the union
21 officials Senator Bruno contacted, and you will see a Wright
22 document about this issue. That document states that the
23 problem with obtaining these written acknowledgments was
24 that certain trustees object to signing such a form because
25 they believe it looks as though they were improperly

8
1 influenced in their decision to employ Wright. You will see
2 and hear evidence that in 1998, to avoid the need for
3 written disclosures, Senator Bruno entered into an
4 employment arrangement with Wright and its parent, the
5 Winthrop Corporation. You will learn that even after this
6 change in his status, the Securities Exchange Commission
7 rule still required disclosure. The rules required
8 disclosure of his employment and the nature of the
9 affiliation with his employer. And you will hear from union
10 officials and union heads that Senator Bruno routinely
11 failed to make those disclosures.
12 Now, in addition to Wright and McGinn Smith,
13 there were other companies that paid Senator Bruno to make
14 contacts for them, not to unions, but to other entities and
15 businesses that had business before the Legislature.
16 For example, you'll hear from Leonard
17 Fassler. Mr. Fassler paid Senator Bruno approximately
18 $483,000, through seven different companies over 11 years.
19 He initially agreed to pay Senator Bruno a commission to
20 introduce his companies to perspective clients. You will
21 hear about one in particular which occurred in 1997. You
22 will hear evidence that Mr. Fassler mentioned to Senator
23 Bruno that he had a good investment opportunity, but Senator
24 Bruno said that he didn't have the money necessary for the
25 investment opportunity. You will see documents that

9
1 Mr. Fassler sent Senator Bruno a check for $15,000, with a
2 note that said: Dear Joe: Would you please send me a
3 consulting invoice to Sage Equities for this payment.
4 Thanks, and regards, Len.
5 Senator Bruno returned a document to
6 Mr. Fassler entitled Invoice, which purported to be for
7 consultant services, marketing, management, organization and
8 conferences, as agreed. And he also included a check for
9 the investment.
10 You will see Senator Bruno's agreements with
11 Mr. Fassler's companies and you will see that after the
12 initial agreement, those agreements did not require Senator
13 Bruno to do anything. And you will hear from Mr. Fassler,
14 who will not be able to tell you anything Senator Bruno did
15 that was worth anywhere near the amount of money he was
16 paid.
17 You will also see and hear evidence about
18 $270,000 paid by another individual Russell Ball through a
19 company of his over 14 months in 2004 and 2005. You will
20 see the written agreements which led to these payments. And
21 you will hear that the only thing Senator Bruno did during
22 the time he was being paid by Mr. Ball was to introduce
23 Mr. Ball to some entities Senator Bruno knew through his
24 official position and to help Mr. Ball resolve billing and
25 other disputes with Consolidated Edison, a regulated utility

10
1 that had regular recurring issues before the Legislature.
2 You will also see and hear evidence about
3 payments made by another individual, Jared Abbruzzese,
4 through four different companies, including a publicly
5 traded company. Those companies paid Senator Bruno a total
6 of $360,000 in 2004 and 2005. You will hear how the
7 payments continued $20,000 a month until they were abruptly
8 terminated four months early after a new CEO became
9 affiliated with the publicly traded company. If the
10 agreement had not been terminated early, Senator Bruno would
11 have been entitled to another $80,000 in payments. You will
12 hear that when the payments ended, Mr. Abbruzzese bought a
13 horse from Senator Bruno for exactly that amount, $80,000.
14 And you will hear testimony that the horse was virtually
15 worthless and was eventually given away to a little girl
16 after a notice was placed on a convenience store bulletin
17 board. You will see the brief letters that led to these
18 payments and you will hear from Mr. Abbruzzese that Senator
19 Bruno produced no written work product, and Mr. Abbruzzese
20 will not be able to tell you anything that Senator Bruno did
21 that was worth anywhere near what he was paid.
22 While Senator Bruno was receiving these
23 payments from the various sources and contacting the unions
24 and the other people that I mentioned, he took official
25 action. He took official action which benefited the unions

11
1 and other people he contacted, and he took official action
2 which vested the interests of Mr. Abbruzzese, Mr. Ball, and
3 Mr. Fassler. You will hear about bills that were passed,
4 and others defeated, which directly affected the unions and
5 others Senator Bruno contacted, as well as those who paid
6 Senator Bruno.
7 For example, you will hear that one of the
8 unions Senator Bruno contacted for Wright, the New York City
9 Correction Officers Benevolent Association, finally after
10 years of lobbying, obtained a huge legislative victory
11 shortly after the annuity fund hired Wright. And you will
12 see documents that this legislative victory caused angst
13 among other New York City municipal unions.
14 You will also hear about hundreds of
15 thousands of dollars of state money which went to unions and
16 companies, including, at Mr. Abbruzzese's request, $250,000
17 in the form of a grant to a local technology company Evident
18 Technologies, and at Mr. Fassler's request, a $250,000
19 equity investment to a company called Aviation Learning.
20 You will also hear that while one of Mr. Fassler's
21 companies, VyTek, was paying Senator Bruno, that company,
22 VyTek, was the member -- was a member of a team bidding on a
23 multi-billion dollar state wireless network contract, and
24 that at Mr. Fassler's request, Senator Bruno convened a
25 meeting in his Senate office to discuss this project.

12
1 These are just a few of the examples of the
2 kinds of evidence you will hear about the official actions
3 Senator Bruno took which benefited the unions and others he
4 had contacted, as well as Mr. Abbruzzese, Mr. Fassler, and
5 Mr. Ball.
6 Now, I've already mentioned to you that a
7 critical issue in this case will be intent. Both testimony
8 from witnesses and documents will help you determine whether
9 Senator Bruno intended to make full and complete disclosure
10 or whether he intended to conceal and disguise conflicts of
11 interest and related information. You will hear about a
12 legislative ethics committee, which is a bipartisan
13 committee made up of representatives of the New York State
14 Senate and the New York State Assembly. The New York
15 Legislature is a part time legislature and outside
16 employment is not prohibited, but one of the things the
17 legislative ethics committee does is it's available to issue
18 advisory opinions to legislators considering outside
19 employment. And nothing about the fact that New York is a
20 part time legislature affects the public's right to
21 disinterested decision making, and that right is violated
22 where an official makes a decision while concealing a
23 conflict of interest which was the potential motivation for
24 that decision. You will hear that Senator Bruno approached
25 the legislative ethics committee about his anticipated

13
1 employment at McGinn Smith & Company. You will also learn
2 that Senator Bruno did not tell the committee that he would
3 be contacting labor unions.
4 You will also hear evidence that Wright
5 employees, Mr. Fassler, and Mr. Ball all believed that their
6 relationships with Senator Bruno had been cleared by that
7 ethics committee. But you will learn that Senator Bruno
8 never told the legislative ethics committee about his
9 financial relationships with Wright, Mr. Fassler, Mr. Ball,
10 or Mr. Abbruzzese.
11 You will also see annual statements of
12 financial disclosure Senator Bruno filed. You will see that
13 Senator Bruno used a company name Business Consultants and
14 later Capital Business Consultants LLC to report payments
15 from his outside financial interests rather than identifying
16 the people who were actually paying him. You will see an
17 exhibit which shows that although Senator Bruno used the
18 name Business Consultants Incorporated, no such entity was
19 ever incorporated, although it had been registered as a
20 d/b/a, doing business as. You will also hear testimony that
21 state workers performed any necessary work regarding Senator
22 Bruno's outside financial activities and that neither
23 Business Consultants nor Capital Business Consultants LLC
24 ever had any employees except for a brief period of time
25 when Senator Bruno's daughter worked for Capital Business

14
1 Consultants. You will learn that neither of these companies
2 was anything more than an empty shell. You will also see on
3 the financial disclosure statements that Senator Bruno did
4 not provide his true title that he had with Wright on those
5 forms, which is -- which was in his formal written
6 agreements with Wright, and that he did not even provide a
7 cursory description of what he was actually doing. You will
8 also see that Senator Bruno did not call attention to the
9 payments he received and the contacts he made by disclosing
10 exactly who he was being paid by and exactly what he was
11 doing for them.
12 Now, during this trial you will hear from
13 many witnesses. I've mentioned some of the categories of
14 witnesses you will hear from of people who paid Senator
15 Bruno. You will hear from union officials and you will hear
16 from Senate staffers, people who handled union and/or
17 legislative issues, people who handled budget issues, and
18 lawyers. I want to say a word to you about the witnesses
19 who will testify.
20 The government does not vouch for any witness
21 who will testify during this trial. It will be up to you,
22 as Judge Sharpe has already told you, to determine the
23 credibility of the witnesses. It is a very important
24 function of the jury. Now, there are several ways for you
25 to do this. One is to look for corroboration. Did you hear

15
1 other testimony or see documents that tend to suggest that a
2 witness is telling the truth? Another is motive. Does the
3 witness have some motive to be truthful or untruthful?
4 Another is to look at what kind of benefit a witness is
5 receiving. Is the witness receiving any kind of benefit
6 that might affect his or her testimony? And another is
7 bias. Does the witness have any kind of bias?
8 In addition to the testimony, you will see
9 many documents. The documents, many of which were created
10 when the events occurred, will be particularly helpful to
11 you as you evaluate the testimony of the witnesses. There
12 will be a lot to digest as the trial proceeds, but after you
13 have heard and digested all of the evidence in the case, you
14 will be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator
15 Bruno did, indeed, violate honest services mail and wire
16 fraud, and I will return to you and I will ask you to find
17 him guilty of all of the counts in the Indictment.
18 Thank you.
19 THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Lowell.
20 MR. LOWELL: May it please the Court.
21 THE COURT: Please.
22 MR. LOWELL: Counsel. Members of the Bruno
23 family. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. As I thought, it
24 didn't take Miss Coombe but 30 seconds to raise the issue of
25 $3.2 million. And it's a lot of money. But the evidence is

16
DEFENDANT OPENING - LOWELL
1 going to show you that that $3.2 million was over 12 years
2 from 13 different companies. Looks a lot different, the
3 evidence is going to show you, when you put it in that
4 perspective because we can start, as Miss Coombe said, by
5 agreeing of the importance of having honest public
6 officials, but the evidence that you hear and that you're
7 going to see is going to show you that Joe Bruno, when he
8 was a senator, and the senate staff who worked with him,
9 carried out this ideal for over 30 years until he retired
10 last year at 80 years old. Having this as a proper goal,
11 that of having honest public officials, the evidence will
12 show that in this case, the prosecutors made a mistake by
13 charging a man who will be shown to be a hardworking, honest
14 public servant who was elected and re-elected 16 times,
15 often with no opposition, to be somebody who would violate
16 the public trust that he cherished so much. When you just
17 heard that this was a case about public officials, and
18 prosecutors use the phrase theft of honest services, you may
19 have thought, oh, the Government's accusing Joe Bruno of
20 bribery or taking official actions for gifts or extorting
21 people to get benefits or bags of cash or secret meetings or
22 kickbacks. And when you heard Miss Coombe say that
23 Mr. Bruno did not do legitimate business with companies that
24 are listed in the Indictment, you may have thought that they
25 were somehow involved in an illegal enterprise, they were

17
1 involved in organized crime, or who knows what. But if that
2 is your impression, let me start by telling you that the
3 uncontradicted evidence in this case will be that there were
4 no exchanges of any kind for official action for any
5 payment; that there was never any pressure of Senator Bruno
6 on anyone; that there was no payoff, but salaries on
7 businesses that he was allowed to have; that there was never
8 any action that he took in front of any state agency for the
9 funds that he received; and, finally, that there was no
10 hiding of anything required to be reported in the State of
11 New York.
12 And you will see after all the exhibits Miss
13 Coombe told you about, all the documents, all the number of
14 witnesses who have been interviewed and will come before
15 you, all the people that have been spoken to by the
16 government, all the massive amount of evidence that has been
17 acquired, you will not find one single piece of paper that
18 has anything from their union pension funds, senate staff,
19 Senator Bruno's office, his family members, all whose
20 records you will see, not one document, not one event, not
21 one check, not one letter, not one phone message, not one
22 note, nor a single witness who will say anything about being
23 in a scheme to defraud, trying to hide information, not
24 disclosing what they thought was proper, not taking money
25 improperly. Not one. Instead, the only document that

18
1 you're going to see that talks about fraud, schemes and
2 wrongdoing is the document that the prosecutors wrote
3 themselves, the Indictment.
4 Instead, the evidence is going to be document
5 after document where Mr. Bruno or one of his staff was
6 asking the right question, trying to do the right thing,
7 trying to fill it out the right way, being sensitive to any
8 conflicts of interest and to make sure that the ethics rules
9 were obeyed. And I say instead, because as you read the
10 charges or hear about them or listen to what Miss Coombe
11 just said, you would probably get the impression that Joe
12 Bruno, when he was a state senator and also in business, did
13 everything himself; that he set up his own businesses; that
14 he answered his own phones; that he sent his own mail; that
15 he kept his own finances; that he paid his own bills; that
16 he managed his own checking account; that he filed his own
17 taxes; that he wrote his own employment agreements and he
18 did his own ethics committee disclosures forms. All of it.
19 But the facts are going to show you that is far from the
20 case. He included a lot of people in the so-called scheme,
21 including a number of lawyers and ethics experts, none of
22 whom the prosecutors have charged with anything. And so you
23 will have to decide how did Mr. Bruno do wrong. And you
24 will see right from the start of this case that these
25 lawyers and ethics staff will swear under oath from this box
19
1 (indicating) that they were brought into the process of the
2 outside jobs of the disclosure forms to do the right thing,
3 to make sure it was done correctly, and that Mr. Bruno was
4 sensitive to even the appearance of a conflict of interest
5 and that he was careful and that they were careful on his
6 behalf.
7 The prosecutors have written an Indictment
8 and it has 35 pages of allegations all around the issue of
9 honest services. Consider, please, the evidence to be 35
10 strands of charges that are on the wall, and it will be now
11 I would like to go through and see which ones stick. So let
12 me review with you what is and especially what is not the
13 crimes charged.
14 They are not that when he served as a
15 business consultant, he did not send a written invoice or
16 write a written report. You will see that that was not
17 required. It is not that he didn't punch a time clock. You
18 will see that he wasn't supposed to. It is not that he
19 helped his daughter Kate by giving her a job in his private
20 company using completely private funds. And it is not that
21 his senate staff helped him with his ethics forms and
22 finances and business arrangements after they had already
23 worked a 40 hour week. No. The actual charges, the heart
24 of the Government's case, is the allegation that Mr. Bruno
25 lied on his financial disclosure ethics forms and in other

20
1 documents. And what is the --
2 MS. COOMBE: Objection, your Honor. That's
3 not the Government's theory of the case.
4 THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.
5 MR. LOWELL: And what is it the prosecutor
6 alleges that he lied about? Was it his private jobs that
7 they allege resulted in having a conflict of interest with
8 his public service? Because he was a legally working for
9 people who the prosecutors allege had a significant interest
10 in what was going on before the New York State government?
11 And then the third thing is that, they even charge that
12 they -- that he did not do enough work for some of the
13 employers that they have listed in the Indictment to justify
14 the fees that he received. And so, according to the
15 Indictment, his salary was, in fact, not income, but were a
16 series of gifts that he also did not disclose as such. From
17 this, they have brought eight separate charges around all of
18 his employment with these 13 companies, for all the years he
19 worked as a private person in addition to his public
20 service. Indeed, the Indictment reads, and you can look at
21 your screen, that from in or about 1983 -- 1993 and
22 continuing through 2006, the entire 13 year period, they
23 allege to be the scheme to defraud.
24 In effect, they are alleging that all of his
25 private employment -- and you've heard the prosecutor say

21
1 that it included McGinn Smith and Wright Investors Services
2 and a man named Fassler and a man named Abbruzzese and a man
3 named Ball; she did not mention a company named Asentinel,
4 but her Indictment does -- are all part of the same scheme
5 for the entire period. But the evidence will actually show
6 you that these are different companies hiring him in
7 different years, with different people, with different
8 missions, with different circumstances, and with different
9 arrangements, and that they are not any scheme at all.
10 As you hear the evidence, please keep in mind
11 that there are two parts to what Miss Coombe just said, and
12 she enumerated them to you. She said, first, there has to
13 be -- and to use her exact phrase -- a concealment or a
14 false statement and --
15 MS. COOMBE: Objection, your Honor. I didn't
16 say false statement.
17 THE COURT: Overruled. I have already
18 explained to the jury the function of an opening statement.
19 It is argument. It is not evidence. Overruled.
20 MR. LOWELL: There are two parts to the
21 Government's charges, both you will have to find beyond a
22 reasonable doubt, as the Court has instructed you and as
23 Miss Coombe has laid out. The first is that there was a
24 false reporting, a concealment, something that was supposed
25 to be disclosed but he purposefully did not. Second,

22
1 falsely not disclosed was a significant conflict of
2 interest. If you don't find that both occurred, then there
3 is no crime.
4 We are in a federal courtroom in a federal
5 courthouse in a federal case, but you will see that the
6 Indictment does not charge or define any federal law that
7 tells New York State legislators how to fill out their
8 disclosure forms, how or what is a conflict of interest,
9 what defines how much work you're supposed to do in your
10 private work. No. That's not in the federal law. But what
11 the prosecutors do quote from are a series of New York State
12 ethics rules that they put right in the Indictment. And you
13 will see ... that they allege that there was state ethics
14 rules that Mr. Bruno and other state legislators were
15 supposed to fill out and follow. But as the Indictment
16 itself states, a violation of these New York State rules, if
17 they were pursued by state officials, would be punished by
18 either a civil or administrative fine, like a speeding
19 ticket I suppose or as a simple misdemeanor. So the way the
20 prosecutors have brought this case, you have now been
21 explained by the Judge and the prosecutor the way its made
22 the proverbial federal case, is to allege that Mr. Bruno's
23 actions violated New York State law, and then because
24 someone mailed Mr. Bruno a pay check or somebody sent an
25 e-mail, they used interstate commerce, and that gave federal

23
1 jurisdiction to the case.
2 Miss Coombe has told you the Government's
3 part of the story. Now it's my turn.
4 My dad had a favorite radio show. It was
5 called The Rest of the Story. There was an announcer named
6 Paul Harvey who would tell you part of a story and then you
7 would think the outcome would be one way, but then he would
8 tell you the rest of the story and you would often hear the
9 opposite. So I would like to go over each and every
10 allegation with you to show you the other side of the story.
11 The Indictment states that Mr. Bruno had a
12 conflict of interest by contacting for personal compensation
13 and by entering into financial relationships with persons or
14 entities who were pursuing their issue before the
15 Legislature or state agencies, and -- and this was the
16 "and" -- by concealing the nature of such conflicts of
17 interest and relationships. The document goes on to quote
18 from another part of the New York law. It states that no
19 member of the legislature should have any interest which is
20 a substantial conflict of interest with the proper discharge
21 of his duties. And please note that the New York State
22 obligation that the prosecutors put in the document that
23 brings us to court today doesn't talk about any conflict of
24 interest, it doesn't talk about the appearance of conflict,
25 but says there has to be a substantial conflict. That's

24
1 what the charge says. And as to that, the government and
2 the Indictment goes on to define what it means by quoting
3 another partial portion of the New York State ethics law.
4 And that says that a conflict is that which will impair an
5 official's independence of judgment. It doesn't say might
6 impair. It says will impair its independence of judgment.
7 So as to conflicts of interest, the government alleges that
8 companies Mr. Bruno worked for when he was working in
9 private business had interests in what was going on in New
10 York State government. Actually, that's not even the
11 charge. It's one step more removed, as Miss Coombe
12 explained. They actually charge that the client of the
13 companies that Mr. Bruno worked for or a company other than
14 the one that hired him, whether it was Mr. Fassler or
15 Mr. Abbruzzese or Mr. Ball, had an interest in the New York
16 State government and that caused Mr. Bruno to take a
17 position in government that was not his independent
18 judgment. That's what the statute says.
19 But the whole evidence, the rest of the story
20 will tell you something else. First, you're going to see
21 that New York is one of those states that has a part time
22 legislature. Its session is not full time. Next, you'll
23 see, legislators are allowed to have outside jobs. You
24 might not have known that from the presentation that Miss
25 Coombe made to you. Indeed, the evidence will show that in

25
1 2004 alone, almost half of New York State legislators had
2 outside income and employment. Given that New York State's
3 government and what you'll hear to be it's 130 billion
4 dollar budget involves almost every business and every
5 profession, once private employment is allowed, you're going
6 to hear from the senate staff that it's almost impossible to
7 work for someone or somebody whose business does not have
8 some interest in the New York State government.
9 And third, whether it is tax laws, licensing
10 agreements, employment laws, environmental laws, work safety
11 laws, housing codes, health care permits, you are going to
12 hear from the senate staff that you would be hard-pressed to
13 find any business not interested in what the Legislature
14 does. And the lawyers who worked for the Senate for over 30
15 years, like Ken Riddett or Frank Gluchowski or other
16 senators that the government may call as witnesses also will
17 explain this to you at the trial.
18 As part of their conflict of interest charge,
19 the prosecutors allege that Mr. Bruno did work for a company
20 named McGinn Smith and Wright Investors Services that
21 provided investment advice to union pension funds and that
22 unions had interests in front of New York State. In fact,
23 the prosecutors may parade 20 witnesses to the box and may
24 take up a week of evidence doing so to tell you that
25 Mr. Bruno made an introduction of their pension fund to

26
1 Wright Investors Services and that they, the union, cared
2 about a piece of legislation or a note. We don't disagree
3 with either of that. And they wouldn't even have to call
4 those witnesses. Because the evidence is going to be that a
5 business having some general interests in New York State
6 government is the starting point of any conflict of interest
7 and not the ending as to what would make a conflict.
8 Remember the word "substantial". And the senate ethics
9 lawyers who are called to the stand are going to explain
10 this difference to you as well. And among the things that
11 these experts will say when they are testifying witnesses is
12 the following: Mr. Bruno provided his offer to do work for
13 this company called McGinn to one of his ethics lawyers, a
14 man by the name of Francis Collins, who goes by the name Tim
15 and who is now a New York State Judge. That letter
16 described the work that McGinn asked Mr. Bruno to provide to
17 them. And that would include, among other potential
18 clients, unions and their pension funds. Judge Collins will
19 then tell you that in keeping with Senator Bruno's practice
20 of making sure he could do outside work and that he will not
21 have a conflict of interest, Mr. Bruno asked Mr. Collins to
22 come to a meeting to discuss his possible employment with
23 McGinn, and that he also asked Judge Collins to get an
24 opinion from the legislative ethics committee to make sure
25 that it was okay for him to take the job. And you're going
27
1 to see the actual letter. You will see that it is Senator
2 Bruno asking then legislator George E. Pataki, later
3 Governor, the chair of the ethics committee as to whether he
4 was allowed to take this job. You will hear that Judge
5 Collins wrote that letter and that it was Judge Collins, not
6 Senator Bruno, who drafted the letter that went to the
7 ethics committee that described the work that Mr. Bruno was
8 offered to do by McGinn. And Mr. Bruno's instruction to
9 Judge Collins, and it was to his staff, was just make sure
10 you do it right. And then you'll see that the ethics
11 committee wrote back, considered the request, and told
12 Senator Bruno that this type of work was allowed.
13 Moreover, if you have the impression from
14 what you just heard that Mr. Bruno pressured funds or anyone
15 else to hire the firms that hire him, McGinn or Wright
16 Investors, with some idea if they would not do so, he would
17 take action again them, he would not help them in the
18 Legislature, or he would do anything else, the evidence
19 again will lead you to the opposite. Because what you will
20 hear when you hear the witnesses from Wright and the pension
21 funds is as follows: First, you'll see that Mr. Bruno was
22 hired as, he has always said, to make connections and to
23 open doors. And you will hear from the attorneys that work
24 in the senate ethics field, Mr. Riddett, Mr. Gluchowski, and
25 others, that this is perfectly allowed. Then you will hear

28
1 that after making an introduction between his employer
2 Wright Investors Services and a possible pension fund,
3 that's all Mr. Bruno did. The Wright investors witnesses
4 like Peter Donovan or a man named Eugene Helm and all of the
5 pension funds witnesses, like a man named Larry Bowman from
6 the Plumbers Steamfitters, or Sam Fresina from the Laborers,
7 or John Bulgaro, if the government calls them, they will all
8 agree that Mr. Bruno never remotely pressured anyone to hire
9 Wright. All he ever said was they were a good shot and the
10 pension funds ought to give them a look, and if what they
11 saw was good, great, and if they didn't like what they said,
12 goodbye. That's all he said.
13 The Wright pension fund witnesses will also
14 tell you that these evaluations of Wright were not done by
15 the seat of the pants, by some political, inexperienced
16 union official. Instead, you will hear from the trustees
17 themselves that they had and they fulfilled their serious
18 obligations to make sure that they invested their member
19 funds wisely. And to do that, you will hear that Wright
20 Investors Services had to make presentations. They had to
21 show their abilities and to convince the trustees that they
22 were good enough. You will see that the pension funds did
23 not just hear from Wright, but often heard from two or three
24 or more other possible investment managers, as when you see
25 a piece of evidence from one of the pension funds, a Local

29
1 Teamsters Union 294, and you will see just in this one
2 example, three presentations by three separate investment
3 managers, with Wright just being one of them, and the
4 trustees getting to pick who was best. Wright Investors
5 witnesses will tell you that sometimes they got the
6 business, sometimes they didn't, and whether they did or did
7 not was based on whether they were the best for the job. It
8 had nothing to do with whether Mr. Bruno made the
9 introduction or not. And if that were not enough, you're
10 going to hear that the pension funds also employed
11 independent financial advisers and lawyers. Like Wachovia
12 Securities or a firm called Morgan Stanley or even a former
13 White House counsel and U.S. Department of Labor official to
14 help make decisions about who was the best investment
15 manager. This review by independent advisers with this
16 background, you will hear and it will come to the stand,
17 actually attended the meetings of the trustees. As you will
18 see, for example, at a meeting of a union called Laborers
19 Local 190, where their independent adviser, a man by the
20 name of Frank Lily who used to work at the White House and
21 used to be in the Department of Labor was the one to make
22 the recommendation. Wright witnesses will tell you that
23 sometimes as well, Wright was the right thing. And you will
24 see that Wright was, in fact, a good investment firm, and
25 that they should have been hired by the pension funds. In

30
1 fact, Wright witnesses will tell you that before they hired
2 Mr. Bruno as a consultant, Wright managed over $2 billion of
3 pension fund business -- 2 billion -- and that after he
4 stopped working for them, they maintained the business and
5 the expertise and that they were, indeed, a good pension
6 fund manager for people to use. The evidence will be, it
7 has already happened, that the prosecutors may tell you that
8 Mr. Bruno made 15 calls that helped 11 firms make an
9 introduction between Wright and pension fund managers. But
10 that's not the whole story. The whole story will show you
11 that Wright investors had 121 such pension funds that had
12 decided that they were the ones that could best service
13 their needs. And you will also hear that these independent
14 advisers and lawyers and trustees were also never pressured
15 in any way by Mr. Bruno to hire Wright. And the fact, as it
16 turns out, that a pension fund didn't hire Wright or stopped
17 using Wright, Mr. Bruno did nothing to stop that, to hurt
18 the pension fund or their unions or anything at all.
19 From Wright and the pension fund witnesses,
20 the evidence will be that the unions with whom Mr. Bruno and
21 the other state legislators dealt, by the way, on
22 legislation is not the same as the pension fund trustees.
23 There are unions and there are pension funds. And you will
24 see that the pension funds are regulated under federal law.
25 You may have heard something called the Federal Pension Fund
31
1 Act, and it is federal law, not state law that regulates
2 them, and that Mr. Bruno could not have been an impact
3 because they didn't regulate the pension funds. And here's
4 a piece of evidence that Miss Coombe didn't tell you which
5 you're going to hear. These trustees were not just people
6 who represented unions but often there was an equal number
7 of management or employer trustees. Because it was their
8 money too. And so the idea that the trustees did only what
9 unions wanted is not going to be the evidence.
10 I think from what I heard the prosecutors
11 say, the evidence is going to be that Mr. Bruno would
12 contact a union and then the pension fund would make a
13 decision. The rest of the story is, I'm going to show you
14 that's not true. A union official may get contacted, a
15 union official would then be working through a financial
16 independent adviser. An independent adviser, you will find,
17 may also in that room have an attorney. These two will then
18 talk to the trustees, and among the trustees will be
19 management, and then a decision is made. So when
20 Mr. Pericak, who will talk to some of the witnesses, or Miss
21 Coombe state that a pension fund did not know that Mr. Bruno
22 was working for Wright, as you heard her say that there was
23 an effort not to disclose, you ought to consider this: If a
24 pension fund trustee did not know that Mr. Bruno had any
25 financial connection with Wright, then how could that

32
1 pension fund trustee or that union be making a decision to
2 try to help Senator Bruno with a financial arrangement that
3 they didn't even know about? So as to pension funds, that's
4 the whole evidence. And that will be the rest of the story.
5 With respect to the private people who hired
6 Mr. Bruno over the last 13 years, the prosecutors charged
7 this too was part of the scheme to defraud, to lie about
8 employment, to hide conflicts of interest. But, again, the
9 evidence will show you to the contrary. First, you will
10 hear from the people who hired Mr. Bruno -- a Mr. Fassler, a
11 Mr. Abbruzzese, and a Mr. Ball or perhaps his wife -- that
12 not one of them hired Mr. Bruno as a consultant to do
13 anything with the state government. They will tell you,
14 each of them, that Mr. Bruno was a successful business
15 person in the communications industry before he was elected
16 and that he was a successful speaker, a leader, thinker and
17 strategy man. These men who hired him wanted the benefits
18 of this experience and success. And under New York State
19 law, you will hear that they were allowed to have it. While
20 the prosecutors may raise the issues that he never wrote a
21 written report or Mr. Bruno didn't punch a clock or he
22 didn't have a time sheet, the employers who come as
23 witnesses will tell you it's not what they were supposed to
24 get from him, and you will hear that that's not what
25 consultants do. In fact, you are going to hear from the

33
1 employers and from the senate lawyers involved in the
2 contract process, again, Judge Collins, Ken Riddett, who you
3 will find was a former judge, and Frank Gluchowski, that
4 Mr. Bruno was not required to do any specific amount of
5 work; that the lawyers made this clear in their contract
6 negotiations with the employers; and that these lawyers
7 actually either wrote or revised the agreements between
8 Mr. Bruno and his employers to make absolutely clear, as
9 this contract example will show you, that the company
10 understands that you, meaning Mr. Bruno, will have sole
11 discretion to determine your schedule in providing the
12 services under the contract.
13 By the way, while we're on the subject, you
14 will hear and see that in each instance, the prosecutors
15 allege to be part of a scheme to defraud, Mr. Bruno asked
16 lawyers, and not just any lawyers, but Judge Collins, former
17 Judge Riddett, and Frank Gluchowski, all experienced with
18 ethics law, to determine if he could do the work and who
19 actually wrote or revised contracts under which he worked.
20 These attorneys and judges will tell you that they were put
21 in the middle between Mr. Bruno and the business entities to
22 make sure that it was done right. None of these attorneys
23 or judges are charged with any offense. And you will have
24 to ask, how is there a scheme if they're the ones
25 responsible for the contracts? And the employers,

34
1 Mr. Fassler, Mr. Abbruzzese, Mr. Ball or his wife will tell
2 you that the advice they received from Mr. Bruno was what
3 they hoped; they will tell you why it was valuable, they
4 will tell you why it helped them, and they will tell you
5 that when it stopped, they ended the relationship. And,
6 again, with no incident, no recrimination, or no problem.
7 And, furthermore, the evidence will be that
8 each of these people who hired Mr. Bruno was not a stranger
9 to him. He was not someone looking for an improper
10 influence or a way to the door. He was not somebody trying
11 to get Mr. Bruno's ear. These were longstanding friends or
12 acquaintances who already had his ear. They didn't have to
13 hire him, pay him, make him a consultant if they wanted to
14 find out what was going on or ask the Senate staff to deal
15 with a problem.
16 The prosecutors charge that these business
17 people involved paid Mr. Bruno too much or Mr. Bruno did not
18 earn the money he was paid. But you're not going to hear
19 that from the people who hired him. The Indictment charges
20 more than that, however. The Indictment actually charges
21 that Mr. Bruno went about finding companies who had business
22 in front of the New York State government as a means of
23 finding employment. And it says it in the Indictment.
24 However, the rest of the story is going to be: Mr. Bruno
25 supported the casuals of working men and their -- and women

35
1 and their labor unions and the goal of economic development
2 to create jobs from the day that he was elected to office
3 before he did any work for any of the companies that are
4 listed in the Indictment. You will see, therefore, that the
5 positions and the help that he provided for people was the
6 reflection of what the statute calls, quote, independent
7 judgment of what was good for Upstate New York and the
8 people who worked and lived here. The evidence will show
9 that these efforts Mr. Bruno took were not for unions. As
10 unions, they were for working people who might or might not
11 be in unions. They were not efforts to get union leaders
12 vacations or cars or bonuses or buildings. These were
13 efforts to support a minimum wage, to make sure welfare
14 didn't cost jobs, to get training grants for unions so
15 workers would be able to keep up with technology, for
16 ridding the workplace of hazardous materials and other
17 safety improvements that would benefit workers who happen to
18 be union members. And the staff who worked on these issues,
19 Ed Bartholomew, John Porter, Abe Blackman, or Dave Dudley
20 will be the witnesses who can explain this to you. The
21 proof at trial will be that Mr. Bruno's motivation, his
22 independent judgment to help working people and not their
23 unions was not whether Wright hired him or whether pension
24 funds hired Wright, but started the minute he understood
25 that his immigrant Dad was a worker involved with coal in a

36
1 paper mill and did not read or write and held that job under
2 very bad conditions for 30 years and who, when the company
3 brought in new equipment, fired him because he was unable to
4 read the documents. And from that day forward, Mr. Bruno
5 made it a commitment to support training grants that would
6 keep workers viable whenever there were changes in the
7 industry for which they worked.
8 In addition, you will see Mr. Bruno's
9 positions to help unions' men and women was, was, finally,
10 we can agree was, as the prosecutors say, the cost of
11 Mr. Bruno's job. Not the job they say. The rest of the
12 story is that he learned about the conditions of working
13 people and supported their issues because he was a wage
14 laborer himself. Cutting and hauling blocks of ice and
15 driving a truck through Glens Falls to put himself through
16 college was how he learned the lessons that he put into
17 place to show his independent judgment as a legislator. And
18 the prosecutors will raise the support for issues and talk
19 about the hundreds of thousands of dollars of grants that
20 were part of the process to get benefits for working men and
21 women. The evidence will be that this was a priority to
22 his, yes, but not because any union pension fund hired
23 Wright or not because any union was somebody he hoped Wright
24 would entertain a presentation with, but a lesson you will
25 hear was because of a lack of proper health care that his

37
1 mom experienced that caused her premature death, leaving his
2 Dad to raise eight kids. And another piece of evidence you
3 will see how his health care reform with working people had
4 nothing to do with Wright was that he supported these
5 initiatives before he was ever hired by Wright. He was
6 supporting these initiatives after he stopped working for
7 Wright. He supported these initiatives for unions that
8 hired Wright. He supported these initiatives for unions
9 that never hired Wright. And he even supported these
10 initiatives for unions that fired Wright. And you will hear
11 this from the senate staff as well.
12 While the prosecutors charge some of these
13 efforts by Mr. Bruno or his staff did create opportunity for
14 a few of the businessmen who hired him, the people he talked
15 about, Miss Coombe mentioned Mr. Fassler, Abbruzzese, the
16 rest of the story will be, that he was never hired by any of
17 these individuals to take any action in the state and he was
18 never paid by them to do so, is that the companies that they
19 raise, like this company Evident or CTI Communication
20 Technologies are not the companies that hired him. They're
21 not the same companies that hired him. The proof will be
22 that some of the things the Government will raise, if you
23 slide forward, that helped, like when he was doing work on
24 what Miss Coombe talked about for utilities and contracts
25 and ConEdison, these were efforts that his staff did for
38
1 thousands of New Yorkers and not because anybody was a
2 friend or an employer. And you'll hear that from the senate
3 staff like Bernie McGarry or Rick Burdick. In the
4 Government opening, you heard about a company called
5 Evident, which you will see Mr. Abbruzzese had an interest
6 in. He did. He had an 8 percent interest in this company.
7 And will you see that that interest was no more than any
8 other person who was an investor in a company, one part of
9 which may have been doing business with the State of New
10 York. Just because the government in its Indictment may say
11 that these were the Fassler companies or the Abbruzzese
12 companies or the Ball companies, but as the Judge said, the
13 Indictment isn't evidence. And the evidence will show
14 something quite different.
15 And as to helping his friends, such as
16 Mr. Fassler's company, a company called VyTek, with what you
17 heard a smidgen of about, attempting to get a contract, to
18 get the wireless contract for the State of New York, you'll
19 find that Mr. Fassler had a piece of one company that was in
20 a consortium with Motorola, IBM and TRW, and that his piece
21 of one company that was part of the consortium was going to
22 have to bid for the business. And you will hear that
23 Mr. Bruno could have nothing to do with the bid, didn't do
24 anything with the bid, and nothing came of it. In fact,
25 Mr. Bruno's friend didn't get the contract. And you will
39
1 hear from this man that they probably should have because
2 the company that was awarded the bid failed.
3 Miss Coombe talked about a company called
4 Aviation Learning, another example of how Mr. Bruno took
5 actions on behalf of those who hired him. But the evidence
6 from the company Aviation Learning will be they never heard
7 of Mr. Fassler and they never heard from Mr. Bruno. And,
8 finally, on every occasion neither Mr. Bruno nor his staff
9 did anything, they will tell you, for a company that his
10 friends were involved in that they wouldn't have done for
11 you, or you, or him, or her, or anybody in New York with a
12 problem, because they will tell you that's how Mr. Bruno
13 thought of his constituent services. And that will show
14 you, again, his consistent independent judgment.
15 The Indictment next charges that Mr. Bruno
16 did not do legitimate work commensurate with the payments he
17 received. The prosecutors allege that those funds are
18 actually unreported gifts. Three different places that
19 charge is made in the Indictment. If you follow the
20 prosecutors' evidence, though, you will see that they can't
21 seem to make up the charge. First, they accuse him of doing
22 too much work to -- to introduce Wright to pension union
23 funds. And now they're saying he didn't do enough work on
24 behalf of the other companies that he was hired by. And it
25 maybe is that the Indictment disagrees and the prosecutors

40
1 think that he should have done more work or been paid less,
2 but the witnesses who hired him will tell you that Mr. Bruno
3 did what the work in the agreement which said he should do
4 and that they think the federal government is becoming the
5 salary police and criticizing their relationship.
6 And one more thing. The prosecutors charge
7 that the money Mr. Bruno was paid over 13 years was for
8 gifts that he did not report. But consider this, his staff
9 and his accountants will tell you that he owed no tax on
10 that if they were gifts and that he listed them as salary
11 and he paid taxes on them. As salary.
12 Let me take a few moments to address the two
13 last strands of the Government's Indictment. The issue of
14 the horse sale to Jared Abbruzzese and a company that was
15 not mentioned to you by name but serves as the last charge
16 in the Indictment, a company called Asentinel. As to the
17 horses, the prosecutors allege that part of the scheme in
18 2005 or 6, Jared Abbruzzese sold his interest in a
19 thoroughbred race horse to Mr. Bruno for what they say was
20 an inflated price as a way to give him another improper gift
21 not disclosed and that the amount was a convenient $80,000,
22 left on a contract that Mr. Bruno had in a consulting
23 agreement. They're right as far as it goes, they just
24 doesn't tell you the rest of the story. The evidence is
25 going to show you that this was not a horse sale made up as
41
1 to be part of a scheme and that Mr. Bruno and his family had
2 been involved in horses since they -- his kids were little
3 and since he had a farm. The evidence will show you that
4 the particular horse sale did not start in 2006, when it
5 ended, but it started two years before when three people,
6 Mr. Abbruzzese, a horse veterinarian named Dr. Bilinski, and
7 Mr. Bruno, joined together with the idea of breeding and
8 selling horses, and that both Dr. Bilinski and
9 Mr. Abbruzzese were experienced in the horse business as
10 well. And either of these men can explain that to you.
11 Next, they are going to tell you that the
12 value of thoroughbred horses is not a precise science.
13 Mr. Abbruzzese will explain that he had special reasons for
14 the money he paid for this horse. And Miss Coombe is
15 absolutely right, that any witness could come to the stand
16 and say it was worthless, but worthless is what is the issue
17 that you will have to decide. Maybe worthless as a race
18 horse, not worthless if somebody wanted that horse for
19 reasons Mr. Abbruzzese and others will explain. In addition
20 to which, as to the value of horses, you will see that this
21 was not about a single horse sale. There were numerous
22 horses involved in the arrangement that led up to the
23 dissolution in 2006. And you did not hear that from the
24 Government. You also did not hear that in this group of
25 horses, one of which the government told you was sold for
42
1 $80,000, is another horse that sold for 150,000, and another
2 horse that sold for 170,000. It's a lot more complicated
3 than it looks at first. And you're going to hear, as
4 before, that Mr. Bruno did as he had always done, by asking
5 senate ethics lawyers to be involved in the process to make
6 sure that the contracts were properly done. And that, as to
7 the horses, will be what you see.
8 Indeed, these same ethics lawyers will tell
9 you that in 2006, what you will see in the evidence, when
10 Mr. Abbruzzese and Dr. Bilinski and Mr. Bruno had this
11 venture to have horses, it dissolved, and you're going to
12 hear that the reason it dissolved was because everybody
13 wanted to obey the ethics rules. You see, Mr. Abbruzzese
14 and Dr. Bilinski wanted to get a racing thoroughbred
15 franchise or be involved in the race tracks or involved in
16 the racing aspects of horses, and because Mr. Bruno was a
17 senator, they were not allowed to be in a financial horse
18 relationship with a public official when racing was
19 involved. And so you're going to hear from the witnesses
20 that the reason they dissolved the partnership was not to be
21 a part of a scheme to defraud, but it was to do the right
22 thing under the ethics law. The lawyers and the witnesses
23 are going to tell you that.
24 And as to that last company, Asentinel, let
25 me say this for now: Here, the charges are that Mr. Bruno
43
1 entered into an agreement to be a consultant to a company
2 called Asentinel by introducing Asentinel to people who did
3 business in New York State or people who were part of the
4 New York State government. But you need to know three
5 things. You need to know first that the man behind the
6 Asentinel was a man by the name of David Perdue. If they
7 call him, David Perdue will tell you he has known Mr. Bruno
8 for 25 years, that they were in the communications business
9 together and they liked and trusted and wanted each others'
10 experience; that he approached Mr. Bruno, not the other way
11 around. That's going to be important because the government
12 doesn't charge Mr. Perdue did anything wrong. Mr. Perdue
13 further will tell you that his business was an excellent
14 business which could save his customers, including the State
15 of New York, lots of money in telephone and communication
16 bills. And, most important, as you have now heard, you will
17 see that what was the very first thing that Mr. Bruno did
18 with the possible contract with the Asentinel? He gave it
19 to his ethics lawyer to see if it was a good idea. And
20 you'll hear from the ethics lawyer that he reviewed the
21 contract and he didn't think it was a good idea because he
22 thought that it gave Asentinel too much power, so he
23 recommended to Mr. Bruno that he not do it. And guess what
24 happened? He didn't. There was never any contract.
25 Because his lawyer said don't do it. And you are -- you'll
44
1 also hear that the lawyer who gave this advice was never
2 asked this question, even though he was interviewed by the
3 government six different times. And that is what the story
4 of the last two charges will be.
5 Ladies and gentlemen, for all that we have
6 just reviewed, as you can see from the Indictment, the main
7 charge that the government has to prove beyond a reasonable
8 doubt is not that just Mr. Bruno had a conflict and not even
9 that he did not do enough work for the money that he was
10 paid, but, according to the Indictment, he schemed by,
11 quote, concealing, disguising, and failing to disclose his
12 financial relationships. Specifically, the Indictment
13 refers back to that New York State ethics law that says that
14 legislators should fill out yearly disclosure forms that
15 states, to question four on the form, any office or position
16 that he or she has. On question five, the name and address
17 of the occupation or business. On question nine, the nature
18 and the amount of a gift. And on question thirteen, the
19 nature and the amount of income. But even the Indictment
20 that the prosecutors have brought in this case says right
21 out there in the charges that under New York State law, for
22 a violation to occur, it has to be, quote, a false statement
23 made knowingly and willfully, with an intent to deceive. It
24 will not, according to what you hear, be a violation of a
25 law to make a mistake or to fail to disclose something

45
1 unless you did it with the intent and the purpose that Judge
2 Sharpe will instruct you at the end of case.
3 As the trial goes on, you'll become well
4 acquainted with a New York State financial disclosure form
5 and specifically with what the prosecutors say Mr. Bruno did
6 wrong. As to question four, rather than list the name of
7 the company he drew money from, Business Consultants or
8 Capital Business Consultants, and you heard Miss Coombe say
9 that, that he should have put down the name of the companies
10 that were hiring him. So he should have put down Wright or
11 the name of Mr. Fassler's company, or he should have put
12 Sage or Interliant or VyTek. And that would be what they
13 allege just as to question five.
14 As to question nine, rather than stating what
15 he got paid and income taxes and it was income, he should
16 have put down all $3.2 million down. That's what he should
17 have done.
18 As to question thirteen, rather than listing
19 that he received income from Business Consultants or the
20 company he worked for or Capital Business Consultants, he
21 should have put down Wright Investors. No. The pension
22 funds. No, no. He should have put down the unions that
23 contributed to the -- no, maybe he should put down the name
24 of the trustees. Anyway, we'll find out what it was he was
25 supposed to put down, because when the people take the

46
1 stand, everything he did, he did pursuant to the way the
2 rules work.
3 And in addition to quoting from the New York
4 State law that makes a violation of disclosures a civil fine
5 or a misdemeanor, the prosecutors have alleged, as Miss
6 Coombe went over with you, that he committed four other acts
7 of concealment. First, they allege that Mr. Bruno decided
8 to do business through entities like Business Consultants
9 and Capital Business Consultants to hide his identity.
10 Next, they accuse him of seeking an opinion from the
11 legislative ethics committee that he could work for pension
12 fund managers but conceal the fact that those clients would
13 include unions. Third, they allege that Mr. Bruno concealed
14 the fact that he was employed by Wright Investors Services
15 when he was asking union pension funds to give Wright
16 consideration. And fourth, and finally, that he
17 purposefully failed to properly disclose that he was seeking
18 this business from unions by not properly filling out a
19 Securities and Exchange Commission form or by changing his
20 status from a consultant to an employee so that he can avoid
21 the issue of disclosure. And each and every one of those
22 four charges, the evidence is going to show you is wrong.
23 As to the business entities, he is going to be shown not to
24 have used business entities like companies and doing
25 businesses as to failing to disclose, but like millions of

47
1 people he works with, companies and entities, for tax
2 liability and other legitimate business reasons. And you
3 will hear that from the people who were involved in putting
4 these together, like his assistant, Pat Stackrow or the
5 lawyers involved. Indeed, the evidence is going to show you
6 this was not even a subject that Mr. Bruno knew much about,
7 whether to do business as a company, or doing business as,
8 or a partnership, or a joint venture. And that's why he got
9 others involved. And you will actually see the evidence of
10 the lawyers' involvement in the process who were responsible
11 for putting together Business Consultants and Brunswick
12 Equities. Mr. Bruno didn't do it on his own, and he didn't
13 do it on his own advice. And you'll hear from the staff and
14 lawyers that gave him that advice.
15 And as to doing business through a company
16 called or an entity called Business Consultants to disguise
17 the fact that he was behind the company, you're going to see
18 county forms, state forms, and federal income tax forms that
19 list Business Consultants, Capital Business Consultants, and
20 each and every one of them puts down that behind the company
21 is the name Joseph L. Bruno, and that the document that's on
22 the screen will have been filed with the Rensselaer County
23 Clerk himself.
24 As to hiding Wright from the unions and
25 hiding the fact that he was going to work for unions from
48
1 the legislative ethics committee, the evidence will show
2 that this letter that Miss Coombe talked to you about and
3 that I showed you on the screen was written by Judge Tim
4 Collins who thought he was describing the work accurately
5 and properly. You will hear from Mr. Collins that he,
6 Mr. Collins, discussed the issue with another lawyer, Ken
7 Riddett, and that Mr. Bruno was not involved in how Judge
8 Collins wrote the letter, that he never told him to hide
9 anything; that the attorneys who were involved did not think
10 they were doing anything wrong. And the prosecutors have
11 not charged either of those men with being involved in this
12 scheme.
13 As to hiding the fact that he was employed by
14 Wright Investors when talking to unions, the evidence may be
15 that one or another trustee will say I didn't know that
16 Mr. Bruno had a financial relationship with Wright
17 Investors, but that didn't mean Mr. Bruno was keeping it
18 from anybody, because the whole evidence is going to be that
19 you're actually going to see letters and minutes of pension
20 fund meetings in which Mr. Bruno is not only mentioned, he's
21 actually at the pension fund meeting disclosing his
22 relationship to Wright. One, for example, will be the
23 presentation made to the paper international union.
24 Mr. Bruno was present. You will hear from Wright Investors
25 witnesses, like Ken Singer, who will tell you that he heard
49
1 Mr. Bruno make the disclosure that he was involved with
2 Wright. And you will hear from Mr. Bruno's own staff people
3 like Ken Riddett, and he'll tell you he heard Mr. Bruno make
4 the disclosure. So the evidence is going to be a scheme to
5 hide, to fail to disclose, to conceal, and the people who
6 are being concealed from are going to come to the stand and
7 say they weren't concealed.
8 And as to trying to hide the names of the
9 companies that Mr. Fassler or Mr. Abbruzzese was involved in
10 to show that he had any connections with these people
11 because the company's name is Interliant and Mr. Fassler
12 stands behind you, you will actually see the financial
13 disclosure forms where Mr. Bruno puts down the name of
14 Interliant, or VyTek Wireless, or those companies in which
15 he actually holds an interest when its a stock ownership.
16 But I suppose then the question will be, should he have put
17 VyTek, paren, by the way this means that Mr. Fassler who has
18 a two percent interest in it. But we'll hear from the
19 experts.
20 As to this issue, you are going to hear from
21 these people, Ken Riddett, Frank Gluchowski, and Pat
22 Stackrow, all people involved, that they knew all about his
23 business relationships, that he never asked them to hide it;
24 he never asked them not to disclose it, and that didn't even
25 dawn on them this was something they were not supposed to

50
1 do. Yes, as to that SEC form, the one that you heard about
2 from the prosecutors, the Indictment reads that this was
3 something that Mr. Bruno was supposed to disclose and his
4 failure to do it was proof that he schemed to defraud. This
5 is the obligation of the investment adviser. And you will
6 hear that the investment adviser is Wright Investors
7 Service, not Mr. Bruno.
8 And then, as to the issue of changing
9 Mr. Bruno from somebody who was a consultant or a referral
10 agent or a door opener, or whatever it is, that the
11 witnesses will say to being an employee so that this form no
12 longer had to be filled out, you're going to hear that was
13 the idea of Wright Investors Services for its purposes. But
14 more than that, you're going to hear that this whole issue
15 of whether he should be an employee or a referral agent or a
16 consultant was discussed between Wright lawyers, lawyer
17 Helen George, and Mr. Bruno's lawyer, Ken Riddett, and
18 Mr. Collins as well, and that they came to the decision as
19 to the right way to do it.
20 And ladies and gentlemen, here's how you can
21 tell that the Indictment doesn't tell you the rest of the
22 story. The Indictment says, and Miss Coombe quoted from it,
23 that the problem Wright was having in filling out this SEC
24 disclosure form was that the problem with obtaining the
25 forms was that certain trustees object to signing such a

51
1 form because they believed it looks as though they were
2 improperly influenced in their decisions to employ Wright.
3 And remember she said that to you? But the actual letter
4 says a good deal more. And the actual letter says: ...but
5 even though the contract is awarded as a result of
6 competitive presentations by several advisers. And Helen
7 George, who wrote this letter, will explain that her
8 statement didn't have anything to do with Mr. Bruno's being
9 a public official, but had to do with the whole issue of
10 whether or not union pension funds should be introduced
11 through any such referral agent, and not because of his
12 position in the state Senate. But you wouldn't know that
13 unless I just told it to you.
14 So let's finish with the disclosure forms.
15 Because, finally, as to the disclosure forms, that's the
16 heart of the case, the prosecutors say that Mr. Bruno
17 purposefully and knowingly lied on these forms by not
18 listing the client of Wright or his own consulting business
19 or by not showing that he got gifts. The whole evidence as
20 to the disclosure forms will paint a different picture.
21 First, Mr. Bruno did not just take this form and fill it out
22 any old way; that he wanted to lie and hide and cheat. It
23 was his staff, including lawyers and ethics experts who
24 decided how things should go on this form. Not Ken Riddett
25 or Frank Gluchowski or Pat Stackrow is going to say they

52
1 were directed to do anything wrong. And none of them is
2 charged with doing anything wrong. You're going to hear
3 that Mr. Bruno provided all of his finances to his assistant
4 Pat. She kept his checkbook, his taxes, his income, his
5 W-2s, his 1099s, and every form from which these financial
6 disclosure forms were done, and that it was her
7 responsibility to gather the evidence. And not one time,
8 not one single time did Mr. Bruno ever deny any staff person
9 access to these financial records that they kept. Not one
10 time. Not one single time did any of them say well, I want
11 to make sure that we include Wright Investors and he said
12 no, no, don't do that. Not one single time will any witness
13 tell you it wasn't their job to get the information, put it
14 correctly on the form. And you'll also hear Mr. Bruno's
15 role, when this was done, was to look at the form maybe two
16 days before it was to be filed and signed it where his
17 secretary told him to sign it. And not one of them will
18 tell you that it was their direction to do anything but
19 let's get it right. And when they tell you it was their
20 direction to get it right, they're also going to tell you to
21 look at the two things that gave them the directions.
22 First, you're going to see the instruction book that
23 everybody uses to fill out the financial disclosure form.
24 And that instruction book on the question that the
25 prosecutors say that he did wrong says boldly, boldly, in

53
1 case you didn't get it, clients, customers, or patients
2 (sic) should not be listed. Client, customers, or patients
3 (sic) should not be listed. So, you put down the name of
4 Wright, you're not putting down the name of Wright's
5 clients. You put down the name of Business Consultants and,
6 you're not putting down those entities that hired Business.
7 Why the scheme to defraud? The instruction book, you will
8 see, you will hold it in your hands, says, clients,
9 customers or patients (sic) should not be listed. And if
10 that's not enough, look at the income. Question thirteen --
11 this is a form you will see -- what does it say? It says
12 clients, customers or patients should not be listed. So as
13 to ethics, the staff is going to show you that they had the
14 ball and that they didn't drop it; they followed the
15 instructions; and that the instructions they followed gave
16 them the advice that now Mr. Bruno is being asked to answer
17 for.
18 And as to ethics, the staff will tell you one
19 more thing. They will tell you he was so sensitive and he
20 was trying to avoid conflicts in a very difficult and
21 complicated world, he even asked if it was okay to play golf
22 with his son when his son was a registered lobbyist. So
23 when you hear the evidence as to whether or not there was a
24 conflict or whether or not this man violated any of the
25 rules, you're going to have to ask yourself where was he

54
1 going to find better instructions than the ones staff told
2 him to follow.
3 So, finally, the evidence will be that
4 Mr. Bruno is the man the supporters thought he was, not a
5 man who violated honest services, but gave them services for
6 all the years he served.
8 You heard about his family's background a
9 bit. You will hear evidence about that. You will hear
10 about his growing up and having five brothers and two
11 sisters. You'll hear about how he came to his position on
12 behalf of working people based on the experiences of his dad
13 and of his mom. You'll hear about how he came to the
14 position of working men through his own work experiences.
15 You'll hear that he served his country in the state
16 Legislature as a businessman and before that in the Korean
17 War. Whenever called, you'll hear he was the first majority
18 leader who had business experience and was a successful
19 businessman and how important that was to people in Upstate
20 New York. And you'll hear he was a man who helped and got
21 his staff involved in almost everything, not to do something
22 wrong, but to do what they were supposed to do. And that
23 rather than being, as Miss Coombe said, the third most
24 powerful man in the New York State Legislature, you will
25 hear that he was the most collaborative, that he delegated,

55
1 that he brought senators in and asked them for their
2 opinion, and that when grants that Miss Coombe told you
3 about had his name on it or another senator's name on it,
4 and you'll hear from Senators Maziarz, Volker, Myers, and
5 the others that they may call.
6 Miss Coombe ended her presentation with you
7 as I would like to do, telling you this is a case about
8 intent. The New York State ethics law, you recall, states
9 that a person has to do something knowingly and willfully
10 and has to do something with a particular kind of intent,
11 intent to deceive. And this is a federal case. The
12 prosecutors will have to show more than any violation of New
13 York State law, although we believe the evidence will show
14 that that wasn't even violated, they have charged and they
15 will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was
16 a scheme as they have alleged it in the Indictment to be
17 that it was a knowing and willful attempt by Mr. Bruno to
18 rob -- that's right, steal -- from the people of New York
19 their right to honest services in a manner that their chart
20 will instruct you at the end of the case.
21 There's a lot of evidence in this case. And
22 there's always ways in a case, as Miss Coombe told you, if
23 you can sort it out, filter it, and figure out whether or
24 not somebody was taking actions to do something wrong or
25 whether he was doing actions not to do something wrong. So

56
1 here are the questions that I think will sort the evidence
2 out in the various ways for you. Is it a scheme to defraud
3 to have a conflict of interest if you being in support of
4 working people is something that you did all your life? Is
5 it a scheme to defraud to influence people to hire you
6 because of your position in government when no one will say
7 that that's what you did? Is it a scheme to defraud when
8 all the businesses involved are legitimate businesses that
9 hired him with a paper trail, a contract lawyer, ethics
10 lawyers, 1099s, W-2s? Is that the way you create a scheme,
11 by having that? Is it a scheme to defraud to ask your staff
12 and your lawyers and your counsel to write to the ethics
13 committee in hopes that somebody will make a mistake and not
14 put down the fact that you have a union client? And is it a
15 scheme to defraud where the prosecutors allege that you were
16 hired for improper purposes, paid too much money, acted
17 improperly, using your firms and filing improper forms, and
18 not a single person comes into this courtroom and says they
19 were not part of such a scheme? That's how you can measure
20 the evidence to determine whether or not this man had the
21 intent to deprive the people of the State of New York of his
22 honest services or whether or not these charges do not fly.
23 Ladies and gentlemen, you were chosen in a
24 long process today in which you promised to be fair and
25 impartial and follow the rules and laws. And I won't go

57
1 over that because it's been so long. Let me remind you of
2 the three principal ones. And the government and the Judge
3 has told you. I want to do it a certain different way.
4 First, Judge Sharpe told you an indictment is not evidence.
5 You don't need to hear more about that except you need to
6 understand that indictments and grand jurys are the process
7 by which prosecutors bring charges and that the defense has
8 no involvement in what happened in front of that grand jury.
9 Now we get our chance, and you are the people before whom we
10 get that chance. As to the presumption of innocence, I want
11 to take it one step further and remind you, as Judge Sharpe
12 did, that it is alone enough to force an acquittal until and
13 such time that each and every one of you is convinced by
14 proof beyond a reasonable doubt to the opposite. It is
15 enough -- let me say it a different way. If I gave you a
16 verdict form right this second and asked you to fill it out,
17 each and every one of you would have to vote not guilty
18 because if you didn't, you would not have provided the
19 presumption of innocence which the Judge has said you are
20 supposed to provide. And as to the burden, as Judge Sharpe
21 said, the prosecutors have it. They have to convince each
22 and every one of you individually about each and every
23 element in each and every one of their eight charges.
24 Mr. Bruno does not have to put on a witness, doesn't have to
25 try to disprove the charges, doesn't have to take the stand,

58
1 doesn't have to do anything. But -- you've seen the names
2 of witnesses and the documents you're going to see, but it's
3 not an obligation of the defense to do so.
4 As to what it is to have reasonable doubt,
5 Judge Sharpe told you what it means. And he'll tell it to
6 you again. You should know, it's the highest burden in our
7 system of justice. Nothing is higher. And you have to
8 individually come to that conclusion yourself for there to
9 be anything that removes that presumption.
10 You have been very patient this whole day
11 with Miss Coombe and me, so let me finish by stating that it
12 is wrong for public officials to violate the public trust.
13 But it's equally wrong for an innocent man to be charged.
14 So when the evidence shows you that there was no failure to
15 disclose anything that was required, that there was no
16 intent to deceive, that there was no substantial conflict,
17 that there was no leaving off anything that was supposed to
18 be reported, and when the evidence does show you that there
19 were actions throughout this man's career that were
20 consistent with this independent judgment, when working in
21 private jobs and having outside income is allowed by state
22 legislators -- maybe they should change the law, but it's
23 allowed -- and when you include ethics lawyers in the
24 business dealings and follow these lawyers' advice, and you
25 do more disclosure than is required, you will see that

59
1 there's not even a state ethics violation that alone is a
2 violation of a federal felony. And because of this, when
3 the evidence is presented, at the end of this case, I'm
4 going to come back to this podium and I'm going to ask you
5 to restore this 80 year old's (sic) man's name and good
6 opinion by concluding the government has not proven any of
7 these charges beyond a reasonable doubt and that each and
8 every one of them was a mistake. (whispering). Thank you.
9 THE COURT: Thank you.
10
11 * * * * *
12 (end request excerpt.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Bruno Trial Opening Statements 1103

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Bruno Trial Opening Statements 1103

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

8 TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL *EXCERPT held in and for

9 the United States District Court, Northern District of

10 New York, at the James T. Foley United States Courthouse,

11 445 Broadway, Albany, New York, on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2009,

12 the HON. GARY L. SHARPE, United States District Court Judge,

14 *EXCERPT - GOVENMENT/DEFENDANT'S OPENING STATEMENTS

17 FOR THE GOVERNMENT:

18 UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE - NDNY

19 BY: ELIZABETH C. COOMBE, AUSA and

20 BY: WILLIAM C. PERICAK, AUSA

21 FOR THE DEFENDANT:

22 McDERMOTT, WILL LAW FIRM

23 BY: ABBE D. LOWELL, ESQ. and PAUL M. THOMPSON, ESQ.

24 DREYER, BOYAJIAN LAW FIRM

25 BY: WILLIAM J. DREYER, ESQ. and APRIL M. WILSON, ESQ.

2 (In open court at 2:30 PM...)

3 THE COURT: Miss Coombe, are you ready for

4 your opening statement?

5 MS. COOMBE: I am, your Honor. Thank you.

6 THE COURT: Please.

7 MS. COOMBE: Good afternoon, ladies and

8 gentlemen. This case is about conflicts of interest, it's

9 about failure to disclose conflicts of interest, and it's

10 about concealment of information that might have exposed

11 conflicts of interest. The conflicts of interest at issue

12 in this case relate to more than $3 million of the payments

15 payments from private parties, he was a New York State

16 Senator, and after January 1 of 1995, when he became the New

17 York State Senate Majority Leader, Senator Bruno was one of

20 him and his staff; labor unions, private companies, even

21 utilities; all kinds of entities. They came to see Senator

22 Bruno because he had the power to make things happen in New

24 During this trial you will see and hear

25 evidence about how Senator Bruno exploited his official

2 learn about the payments Senator Bruno received. You will

3 learn that in some cases Senator Bruno was paid by people in

4 order to contact others who had business before him. And in

5 other cases, Senator Bruno was paid directly by people who

6 had business before him.

7 You will see and hear evidence that Senator

8 Bruno failed to disclose and, in fact, actually concealed

9 and disguised these contacts and these payments and the

10 resulting conflicts of interest. You will also see and hear

11 evidence that Senator Bruno took official action which

12 benefited the parties he contacted and the parties that were

14 Senator Bruno failed to disclose information to his fellow

15 legislators and to the citizens which they could have used

16 to determine whether Senator Bruno was placing the public

17 interests first, as he was required to do, or whether he was

18 instead placing his own financial self-interest above the

20 As Judge Sharpe mentioned to you, Senator

21 Bruno is charged with honest services mail and wire fraud.

23 the elements of the offense and he has already instructed

24 you about the elements of the offense. The Government must

25 prove each and every one of those elements beyond a

2 intent. Did Senator Bruno act with the intent necessary to

3 deprive the citizens of their intangible right to his honest

4 services? You will need to determine whether Senator Bruno

5 intended to make full and complete disclosure of the

6 contacts he was making and the payments he was receiving, or

7 whether he instead intended to conceal and disguise