1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25

1B14BOY1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. WILLIAM BOYLAND, Defendant. ------------------------------x New York, N.Y. November 1, 2011 9:55 a.m. Before: HON. JED S. RAKOFF District Judge APPEARANCES PREET BHARARA United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York WILLIAM HARRINGTON GLEN McGORTY Assistant United States Attorneys RICHARD ROSENBERG MICHAEL BACHRACH Attorneys for Defendant JURY TRIAL 11 CR 300 (JSR)

ALSO PRESENT: Julie Brown, Special Agent, FBI Daniel Nessim, Paralegal Russ Bretan, Paralegal

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1B14BOY1 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

(Case called) THE COURT: So, we have two preliminary matters. The government has made a new motion in limine to preclude any defense evidence that Mr. Boyland requested New York State funding for entities other than for the MediSys Health Network and its constituent hospitals. I think there are several different prongs of this that we need to consider. The first is the question of relevance. It seems to me the evidence probably is relevant in the following limited respects. The defendant is claiming it was no bribe, that he received consulting payments for consulting work and he made requests for funding for MediSys for independent reasons and having nothing to do with his consulting arrangement. The government as part of proving its case to the contrary, intends to put in evidence that Mr. Boyland requested $5 million in state funding for Brookdale in May 2003 and another $3 million in state funding for Brookdale in February 2004, and finally requested $3 million in state funding for Jamaica Hospital. As I understand the defendant's proffer, he wants to negative the inference that the jury might draw from the mere fact that those requests were made at a time when Mr. Boyland was receiving consulting payments by showing that as part of his legislative duties, Mr. Boyland made frequent requests for funding for a wide variety of projects. And for that limited purpose, it sounds to me like it's relevant, but let me hear SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

3 1B14BOY1 the government if it disagrees with that portion of my discussion so far. MR. McGORTY: Your Honor, I don't know if my response is going to direct it into another prong of yours. My immediate response to yours -THE COURT: I am only talking about relevance. MR. McGORTY: -- as opposed to the other evidentiary issues like the hearsay potential problem. THE COURT: Yes. MR. McGORTY: With respect to relevance, your Honor, it's not probative, the government's position is that it's not probative of anything of the fact Mr. Boyland did other acts as an assemblyman. THE COURT: How can that be. If all the jury hears is that at a time when he was receiving payments from MediSys, he made this request on behalf of MediSys, and they had no knowledge that he ever made any requests on behalf of anyone else in the world for any purpose whatsoever, it raises an inference of quid pro quo that is not necessarily a fair reflection of the context because the context is that assemblymen make requests for funding all the time for a wide variety of things. You may know that from common knowledge, I may know it from common knowledge, but the jury can't be assumed to know it from common knowledge, so the defense has a right to show that. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1B14BOY1 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. McGORTY: Your Honor, I think what the defense is attempting to show is that on other occasions Mr. Boyland made funding requests about which we know nothing about the source, the relationship, what prompted it, and the inference that the jury is asked to be drawn by the defense is that because in these instances he made funding requests where there is no evidence of a corrupt relationship or what the motive was, they should infer there was no corrupt motive and therefore because he acted in a way on particular occasions, specific instances of the conduct, they should infer that the particular funding requests that we believe are official acts in this case as part of the bribery conspiracy, should be viewed as being not born from the corrupt action. THE COURT: If that were their proffer, they would have problems since you phrased it in terms of what the rules exclude, and I commend you for reading the rules. I don't think that's what they are doing. I think they are trying to place in legitimate context the requests that were made that you are planning to introduce. They could not make the precise argument you are making but what they can say is, look, don't infer from the mere fact that these requests were made that there was something wrong, look at what an assemblyman does all the time. That's I think slightly different but significantly different from what you are saying the rule excludes. Now let's hold that for a second, because I think they SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

5 1B14BOY1 have huge hearsay problems in terms of vetting these letters. Let's take a typical letter. Here is one, picking these at random. This is March 17, 2008, which may not be the relevant timeframe, so there is a problem. MR. BACHRACH: Which exhibit is that marked as. THE COURT: 150. Putting aside, we will get to questions of timeframe, things like that, anyway. Dear Speaker Silver, I am requesting an allocation for $30,000 to the Concord Family Services. I think that is the single and only sentence in this five-paragraph letter that is not hearsay. So I don't think the rest of the letter will come in. MR. BACHRACH: Your Honor, if the defense could comment on that, obviously this is a letter that relates to matters not as closely connected as some of the other letters. THE COURT: I will get to some more. MR. BACHRACH: As far as the substance is concerned outside of that first sentence, our position, we would agree, the rest of it would not come in for the truth. We would say, however, that it could come in as non-hearsay simply for the fact that it was said, the rest of the letter. THE COURT: What is the relevance that it was said? That falls into the very trap that the government counsel is correctly voicing his opposition to. MR. BACHRACH: Only to the extent we think it would be relevant to the extent that the government we believe will SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

6 1B14BOY1 argue that because of the detail that's in the letters they intend to reply upon, that he could have only been receiving that detail from David Rosen, and they will ask the jury to infer that the detail shows that there was a conspiracy. THE COURT: I don't think the rest of this paragraph, these paragraphs has anything to suggest to the contrary. I think there is every reason to believe the rest of this letter was probably crafted by someone at Concord Family Services. MR. BACHRACH: That would be the only point we are trying to draw which is simply that the information in these letters he could get from other sources. THE COURT: I disagree. Now you are really asking the jury to infer all sorts of hearsay assumptions. MR. BACHRACH: Not from -THE COURT: Yes. I think so. MR. BACHRACH: OK, your Honor, thank you. THE COURT: To take another example, Exhibit 152, I think the only part of that letter that's not hearsay is the last sentence, quote: So on behalf of Brooklyn Children's Museum, I am requesting $1.5 million in funding. There are also letters that are not signed, that are offered like DX701, that are signed by other people. I don't see how these letters come in for any purpose. DX701 is a letter to Speaker Silver from Assemblyman Towns requesting on behalf of the Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Caucus, a $3 million line item SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

7 1B14BOY1 to begin the process of creating an independent public defense commission. MR. BACHRACH: Your Honor, may I respond. I don't want to waste your time. Just to be clear, we are not going to be offering into evidence all of these exhibits. I want to make sure that's clear. We provided the full packet. THE COURT: Are you offering this one or not? MR. BACHRACH: Into evidence, this one, no. THE COURT: Generically, you told me that; you didn't tell me which ones you were offering, which ones you were not, so I had to speculate. MR. BACHRACH: I don't think we made a determination on every single one. THE COURT: You are going to have to make it pretty soon because I am about to rule. MR. BACHRACH: Then we will. THE COURT: You asked for a ruling in advance of trial on this very point, or the government did. Similarly, Defendant Exhibit 491, this is signed by not only Boyland but all members of the Brooklyn delegation of the New York State Assembly, and they are writing in support of a request by the Brooklyn Arts Council for a grant of $300,000. So the mere fact that Mr. Boyland along with a dozen other people affixed his signature seems to me too remote from the very limited purpose it seems the other evidence was relevant. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1B14BOY1 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. ROSENBERG: Perhaps I can offer a proposal. The witness we were going to use for this William Collins who was counsel to the majority of the New York State Assembly who testified that these records are maintained in the normal course of assembly business, these requests are kept and maintained as they are received by individual assemblymen. When we requested all the requests by Assemblyman Boyland, he sent us all of these various categories, individual budget requests made by him, what we call member items or legislative initiatives, also the Black Puerto Rican Caucus which he was part of. But in the run-up to trial, Mr. Collins also had prepared and extracted from those business records maintained by the assembly a listing by date and subject matter or recipient, if you will, of requests made by Assemblyman Boyland year-by-year for funding. Maybe, I think if we cannot use the subject matter of these letters, redacting would be a major undertaking, you have the jury look at letters mostly blacked-out or redacted, perhaps the simpler way would be to have simply Mr. Collins testify to that particular chart that he developed. THE COURT: That's a real possibility. Is his chart restricted to requests that Mr. Boyland alone made. MR. ROSENBERG: We have to adapt that because part of that included the caucuses. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1B14BOY1 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 purpose. THE COURT:

9 I don't find that relevant for the limited

MR. ROSENBERG: We can extract that. I can just elicit testimony in addition to. THE COURT: I think this would be a possibility. MR. ROSENBERG: That way the jury only hears the bottom line. THE COURT: Here is what I think might be a possibility, that Mr. Collins could testify that he reviewed the business records of the assembly looking for requests for funding by Mr. Boyland, that he found during the year X, Y number of requests, during year Z, etc. and perhaps that they range in amounts from X to Y. He would have to, however, be prepared I think to answer questions about, for example, how many of those requests related to matters outside Mr. Boyland's district. That's one of the points made by the government, that MediSys requests in part were not in his district, Mr. Boyland's district, so why is he doing this. Mr. Collins would have to have at least sufficient knowledge if he is being portrayed, in effect, as the person giving a summary of business records to be able to answer that. If he can't do that, of course he has time between now and then to review the letters, if he can't do that, I think he is probably not an appropriate summary witness. So all he could do is authenticate letters and we would have to have them SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

10 1B14BOY1 redacted, the whole business, which I agree with you would be cumbersome at best. MR. ROSENBERG: If I might suggest he could testify as to the subject matter of those requests and it could come out through perhaps other witnesses whether or not those subject matter lay outside the district of the 55 AD. THE COURT: He is saying he reviewed the requests. He should be able to testify. We could put them all in front of him, not admitting them in evidence and say go through them. What's the overall number if we limit it to requests from Mr. Boyland himself, ballpark, 10, 100, 1000? MR. ROSENBERG: A couple of dozen. THE COURT: He could, if worst came to worst, review them on the stand and say which ones were for within the district and which were outside; dates might also be relevant. MR. ROSENBERG: That's a subset issue, whether it's inside or outside his district. Again the government is saying his letter for Brookdale which serves his district, it's not a question that it was outside as Jamaica, for instance. So, we just want to simply bring out through Mr. Collins that the legislative business involves making budget requests for a variety of different recipients. THE COURT: I am willing to have Mr. Collins testify, subject to any other objections that will be heard at the time the specific question is put, that he reviewed the business SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

11 1B14BOY1 records of the assembly, whatever the relevant way to word that is, that he located a total of you tell me a couple dozen requests from Mr. Boyland for funding for various organizations between period X and y. But he has to be prepared, even if it's on the stand after looking at those requests, to be able to answer more specific questions that the government might have about them. That's my point. MR. ROSENBERG: Well, I don't know from the face of those letters whether it would be within his ability just to tell from looking at a letter whether it's within his district or without his district. THE COURT: That's a fair answer. If he doesn't know, he doesn't know. But if it's something that, if he is going to testify that he extracted X number of letters, he's got to have at least read them and be familiar with them to the point that he can answer the government's questions, not your questions because your questions would call for hearsay of the sort that I am anticipating the government would oppose. MR. ROSENBERG: There is also the issue whether the request related to a MediSys entity or a non-MediSys entity. I think part of the government's argument certainly is that the requests are corrupt in and of itself because of the subject matter, that it's MediSys, that it's Brookdale, that it's Jamaica. There may be scores of other requests that are not non-MediSys. I think that's fair for the jury to hear. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1B14BOY1 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

12

THE COURT: For present purposes I am tentatively of the view that sufficient to allow you in your opening statement to suggest that assemblymen make requests for funding all the time, something like that, but not going into much more than that. MR. ROSENBERG: I wasn't even going to go that far. THE COURT: That's good. That Mr. Collins can testify that he reviewed the records and he located X number of funding requests from Mr. Boyland individually during period X and Y. We will have to work out what further familiarity if any he needs to have. We can talk about that between now and when he takes the stand. I agree with you that's a much better way to proceed than through redacted letters. MR. ROSENBERG: I would also want to elicit from Mr. Collins, the work of the assemblyman that includes as well member items, I won't go into all his member items, just generically speaking about the type of requests that assemblymen make. THE COURT: How does that relate to any issue in this case; this is only about requests for funding. MR. ROSENBERG: All of them are requests for funding; they are different forms. There are budget requests which were the capital budget which were Brookdale and Jamaica requests. There are also items called legislative or local initiatives, also known as member items where each assemblyperson has a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

13 1B14BOY1 discretionary fund that they can recommend expenditures from that fund for various interests that they may have. THE COURT: I don't understand the government to be claiming, maybe I misunderstand, that he used any member items. MR. ROSENBERG: That's right; I think that's relevant, that he has not used. THE COURT: No. I am going to limit, because of the narrow relevancy and potential for confusion, we have not even talked about 403, I think there is potential for confusion, I am going to limit it to requests that are comparable to the requests the government is going to introduce. We have one other issue to take up relating to the jury charge. I am not going to make a final decision until the charging conference. Defense counsel wanted a general ballpark. The government has to show at least under some of the charges that Mr. Boyland had an intent to receive something of value in exchange for an official act, see United States v. Ganim, it is no defense but I will give some charge as requested by the government, that it is not a defense that had there been no bribery, the defendant might have done this anyway; that's not a defense. It's also not a defense and I really think should not figure anywhere in the evidence, even in argument from counsel, that the particular funding of these particular institutions was beneficial to the public or the community or anything like that. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1B14BOY1 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

14

MR. BACHRACH: Can you explain what you mean by that, your Honor, I am sorry. THE COURT: If Mother Teresa took a bribe to get funding for the cure of children with leprosy, it would be totally irrelevant if she were charged with bribery that that's a wonderful thing to do. That's not a defense to bribery. So think there are a few other points. The quo of the quid pro quo can be implicit as well as explicit. Conversely, the mere fact that Boyland was employed by or received a consulting arrangement with MediSys is not a bribe per se. These are all self-evident points. The quo can be a commitment to perform official acts as the opportunity arises. See my opinion in Rosen. But if the benefit is simply an effort to buy, the bribery is simply an effort to get generalized goodwill from a public official, that would not satisfy the quo portion of quid pro quo. Those are as best I can give you at this very preliminary stage. I want to stress I am doing this at your request. The charging conference will fine-tune all this. MR. ROSENBERG: We much appreciate your Honor's comments. I want to clarify something. I think it would be part of our case and our defense, not to say that certainly we accept the proposition notwithstanding the good cause, a person can be bribed. However, I think it is relevant to bring out to the jury the particular needs of a community to explain why a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

15 1B14BOY1 legislator would take certain actions or write certain letters and the needs of the hospital as it pertains to that community whom he represents. The government is certainly free to argue withstanding all that he was bribed and influenced and he had this unlawful agreement. But I think -THE COURT: You are saying that he had an independent motive to take this act, so that's part of your evidence of disproving their allegations of intent. MR. ROSENBERG: Yes. THE COURT: I think within limits that's right, but I think that the potential for going over to the forbidden argument that this was a wonderful thing is a line you have to be very careful not to cross. MR. ROSENBERG: Well, I don't know what that bright line necessarily is. THE COURT: I will let you know as we go along. MR. HARRINGTON: May I add one thing. Based on some defendant exhibits, we might see some proffers of evidence that are sorts of general facts about the community. I think the government will be objecting to the extent that those facts are not tied to this defendant's knowledge because they can't demonstrate his intent if they are just sort of general statistics about particular zip codes. THE COURT: That's an independent ground. That's a good example why I can't give you much more guidance at this SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

16 1B14BOY1 point. We will have to do it as we go along. MR. ROSENBERG: The government's own witnesses who are hospital administrators and community outreach people testified in the Rosen trial are in the position to testify about that community and about the healthcare. THE COURT: The government's point is the narrow but legitimate relevance to what you want to argue in this regard is that the jury can infer that Assemblyman Boyland, knowing of this particular need or knowing of that particular problem, saw all this as something he wanted to support independent of any payment from MediSys. So that he stuck to that is proof that he had knowledge of it. There are some very general facts about his community which one might infer he knows just from being a resident of that community and being an assemblyman for that community. If you get down to much more specific things, you have to show in order to get into evidence that he knew it; otherwise, it's irrelevant. If, for example, I am picking this out of thin air, it's just a hypothetical, if, for example, he had made a request for a payment to a particular hospital employee, I request that $10,000 be allocated to hire Mr. Jones to help MediSys, and you want to introduce evidence from some other witness saying the hospital desperately needed Mr. Jones, he was the most qualified person, blah, blah, that would not be admissible if there is no showing that your client knew any of SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

17 1B14BOY1 that. So that's the kind of problem. All right. MR. BACHRACH: Your Honor, there is one more legal issue I want to flag for the court, you are not aware of yet. I don't know when you want to take it up, now or later. THE COURT: I want to pick the jury if the panel is here. MR. BACHRACH: I will be quick. Late yesterday afternoon the government informed us, I think it was late, that one of their witnesses, the fourth witness, Olga Cendroski, would not be able to testify. Ms. Cendroski at the Rosen trial is the witness they used to introduce various emails, a whole slew of emails. THE COURT: Any witness on the government's list that they choose not to testify you can call. MR. BACHRACH: The reason she is unavailable apparently is she had surgery. THE COURT: A pretty good reason. MR. BACHRACH: I agree. Government proposes a substitute witness. We have concerns regarding whether the substitute witness would be an appropriate witness to introduce various testimony. THE COURT: Let's take this up at the lunch break or something. MR. BACHRACH: OK. I wanted to flag it. THE COURT: I want to flag for counsel we will not be SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

18 1B14BOY1 sitting Monday afternoon. So just keep that in mind. Of course, if we get to it, hopefully we won't, Friday a week, that's a federal holiday. The panel is coming up. I need to ask everybody in the audience to move to the back of the courtroom so we can seat the panel in the front. You can resume your seats later after we pick the jury. MR. BACHRACH: One last housekeeping matter, Batsons, if we have them, how would you like us to indicate them. THE COURT: Ask for a sidebar. MR. BACHRACH: Thank you. (Voir dire follows) (Continued on next page)

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1B14BOY1 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

19

THE COURT: So, ladies and gentlemen, you are the jury to try this case. We are going to swear you in in a minute, then we are going to excuse you for about 15 minutes so you can get used to the jury room. That's where you will come in each day and where you leave at the end of the day. Then we will call you back and we will hear opening statements from counsel. Then we will excuse you for lunch. Let me give you a few housekeeping rules just before we get going. The first rule, really the most important rule is that you need to decide this case solely and wholly on the evidence you will hear from the witnesses and from the exhibits that will be received in evidence. It follows from that that you should not discuss this case with anyone outside. You can tell a spouse or an employer I am going to be on jury service and worst case it will go two weeks. When they inevitably say tell us about the case, you have to say no, I can't do that, because if you do they will start asking you questions, they will start giving you their opinions, of course, they have not heard any of the evidence, and we don't want you to focus on anything but the evidence right here in this courtroom. So don't discuss the case. Along the same lines, please don't try to Google information about the case or look for anything outside of the way of evidence. We are going to give you all the evidence you need to decide this case. We are also going to give you the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

20 1B14BOY1 only evidence that meets the rules. You have to decide the case based on that, again not on some rumor, gossip, hearsay, or anything else, just the evidence in this courtroom. One other thing along the same lines, I don't know if there will be any media coverage of this case or not, but in the event that there is, and you happen to be watching the television or reading a newspaper or online or whatever, you see something about this case, immediately turn it off. If it's written material, turn to another page. Don't read it. Because once again it's really vital to your job and to fairness to both parties that you decide the case solely and wholly on the evidence you hear right here in the courtroom. The other housekeeping rule I want to mention to you i is that all the witnesses and attorneys are under very strict rules to have no contact with you whatsoever. If you are in an elevator and one of the lawyers is there and they don't even smile and say hello, it's not because they are being rude, it's because they are under the strictest direction to have no contact with you whatsoever. So, we will swear you in. (Jury panel of 12 jurors and 2 alternates sworn) THE COURT: Follow my courtroom deputy into the jury room. We will see up in about 15 minutes. (Jury leaves courtroom) THE DEPUTY CLERK: Judge, Juror No. 3's cap just came SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

21 1B14BOY1 off while she was sitting in the jury box; she is going to have to go to the dentist, Juror No. 3. THE COURT: Juror No. 3 just as she was walking out, one of her caps came off her tooth and she is going to have to go to the dentist. This is why we have alternates. It sounds like we are going to need to excuse her because we need to move forward. So, you can tell her she is excused. Alternate No. 1 is now Juror No. 3. Let me mention to the other members of the jury panel, normally at this point I congratulate you for dodging the bullet. However, this is a relatively short case; you may get stuck with a bigger case. But what you should do now is go down to the jury room. We will send your card down in a few minutes. Thank you so much for being available to serve. (Pause) THE COURT: The folks in the audience are now free to take seats anywhere. Anything counsel needs to raise with the court. MR. HARRINGTON: No, your Honor. MR. ROSENBERG: No, your Honor. THE COURT: You are excused. We will see you in 15 minutes. (Recess) (Continued on next page) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1B14BOY1B 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

22

(In open court, jury not present) THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, first of all, my congratulations to Alternate No. 1, you are now Juror No. 3. This is so exciting. I forgot to mention as I was talking about housekeeping rules, you should not even discuss the case among yourselves until it's given to you at the end of the case for your deliberations. The reason for that is the evidence is going to come in one bit at a time and we don't want you to start making conclusions until you have heard all of the evidence. I notice and it's perfectly acceptable if some jurors have already their pen and paper out to take notes which is fine, but I just want to remind them as well that you are not going to see the whole picture until all the evidence is in. So you are more than free to take notes as we go along, but you really shouldn't form any opinions until all the evidence is in. We are about to hear opening statements of counsel. The statements of counsel are not evidence. So you may ask why do we have opening statements. The reason is, again, because the evidence is going to come in one little bit at a time, it may be useful for you to have an overview of what each side believes the evidence will show or will fail to show. So, this is kind of a road map that counsel will give you. They are making predictions as to what they think the evidence will show SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

23 1B14BOY1B or fail to show. Their predictions may be totally wrong. It may be useful to hear what they have to say to kind follow things as they begin to come in. Lastly, I want to remind you that because this is a criminal case, the burden of proof is always on the government. They are required to prove any given charge beyond a reasonable doubt. For that reason they go first. We will hear first from government counsel. MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Money, power, politics, bribery. In the winter of 2003, William Boyland Jr. ran for political office. He was elected by the people of Brooklyn to represent them in the New York State Assembly. They entrusted him with the power to pass laws, the power to use his position to influence the governor and members of the governor's staff, the power, the privilege to be their voice. William Boyland Jr., the defendant, took the people's trust and sold them out. On top of the salary he earned from New York State, Mr. Boyland pocketed $175,000 from a hospital. He didn't take this money because he was a doctor or a nurse. He wasn't paid to manage the hospital's payroll or to take x-rays. No. This was a no-show job. Boyland did no meaningful hospital work. But the hospital got something for its money. What the hospital got was a paid advocate in Albany, a politician on the take. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

24 Opening - Mr. Harrington William Boyland Jr. grabbed the money to advocate for the hospital in his capacity as an assemblyman as opportunities arose, to use his influence with the State Department of Health to seek millions of dollars from New York State for the hospitals. In short, he was being bribed, bribed to use his influence as an assemblyman in Albany. Every time Boyland was asked about why the hospital paid him, he covered up the true nature of what he was doing. He made false statements to the FBI and he made false statements to the New York State Assembly. During the trial you will learn that hospitals live and die on decisions made in Albany. William Boyland Jr. knew it and that's why he demanded a no-show job to enrich himself. Because of this, Boyland stands charged of conspiring to violate the federal laws that prohibit bribery. Over the next 10 minutes, I am going to first give you a preview of what the government expects the evidence to show. I will then talk to you briefly about how the government expects to prove that, the kind of evidence that you will see. First, what does the government expect the evidence to show. We expect the evidence to show that Boyland was being bribed by a hospital and that they disguised the bribes as a no-show job. In the winter 2003, William Boyland Jr. was elected to the New York State Assembly. What is the New York State Assembly. The assembly is one of the two legislative SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1B14BOY1B

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

25 1B14BOY1B Opening - Mr. Harrington bodies in the state. Boyland was one of the 150 members. Every member is elected every two years. Along with the New York State Senate, the assembly is responsible for passing all of the laws of the state, and every dollar New York State spends must be authorized by the legislature, including the assembly. You will also learn that assembly members like Boyland, they also work a second job. There are restrictions on the kinds of work they can do. The job can't conflict with their duties as an assemblyman and of course they cannot take bribes by disguising those bribes as consulting fees or as employee income. Before he was in the assembly Boyland began his professional life working at Brookdale Hospital in Brooklyn. Starting in 1999, he was assigned to Urban Strategies, a clinic affiliated with Brookdale Hospital. His job was community outreach. He attended the community fairs, church fairs, he helped market the Urban Strategies clinic. It was a real job. In those days he showed up for work and he reported his activities to his supervisors. In 2002, Boyland's father Frank announced that he wanted to retire from his seat in the assembly. William Boyland Jr. decided to run for his father's seat. The governor called for a special election. William Boyland Jr. won. He was now a member of the New York State Assembly. He was going SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

26 1B14BOY1B Opening - Mr. Harrington to earn approximately $75,000 a year as a member of the assembly. But he didn't want to give up his salary at Urban Strategies; he wanted to keep both salaries. As I mentioned, an assemblyman is permitted to work a second job. William Boyland Jr. could have worked a second job if he wanted to do so. But Boyland had no intention of actually earning this money by doing hospital work. He knew he was valuable now. He was valuable because of how he could use his job in government to get things done for the hospitals in Albany. So what did Boyland do? He didn't do what you would expect an employee who legitimately wanted to change something about their job to do. He didn't talk to any of the people he had been working for for years. He didn't talk to his supervisors at Urban Strategies. He didn't talk to his supervisors' supervisor. What did he do. He went right to the CEO of the entire hospital chain, the man chiefly responsible for dealing with the hospital's needs in Albany, a man named David Rosen. You will learn that Boyland raised an issue with David Rosen of how he could get paid by the hospital without showing up for work. Unlike any other employee, Boyland did not want to have to swipe in to show he was present. That's because he had no intention of doing legitimate hospital work. You will learn during the trial that Rosen jumped at the opportunity. He agreed to call Boyland a consultant before talking to a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

27 1B14BOY1B Opening - Mr. Harrington single other employee at the hospital. Rosen didn't ask Boyland's boss or any of Rosen's executive staff. He just ordered them to start cutting checks for Boyland. Boyland never had to show up for work again. He no longer had a supervisor. He no longer had to file reports. He didn't even have to swipe in anymore. How did Rosen and Boyland think they could get away with this. They kept the true nature of their relationship secret. In fact, even the existence of the relationship was a well-kept secret. Virtually no one at the hospital knew about Boyland being a supposed consultant, not his old boss, not his old boss's boss, not even David Rosen's right-hand man, his chief operating officer. No one. The only people who knew about the secret arrangement Were the people that Rosen told to make sure that Boyland got his regular check, the people in the hospital's financial department. As you might expect, Boyland did no meaningful consulting work for the hospital from the fall of 2003 through 2008. He handled no special projects. He wrote no reports. He simply did not consult. But you will learn that Boyland did fill his end of the illegal bargain with David Rosen. He was Rosen's ally in Albany on all of the issues that mattered most to Rosen's hospitals. In 2004, he petitioned the assembly for $3 million for Brookdale Hospital. In 2007, he petitioned the assembly SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

28 1B14BOY1B Opening - Mr. Harrington for another $3 million for Jamaica Hospital. Both of these hospital were run by David Rosen. In 2006, he conferred with David Rosen about the New York State budget. Again in 2006, Boyland called Rosen when moneys were available in the state budget for the New York State Office of Mental Health. Boyland lobbied the State Department of Health on Rosen's behalf, helping smoothe the way most importantly of all when Rosen was seeking to acquire a competitor hospital in Queens. You will also hear many of the things Boyland advocated for didn't come through. Many of Boyland's efforts did not bear fruit. As you will learn during the trial, Albany is a place where you keep trying. Boyland did keep trying to get these things done for the hospitals in Albany because he was being bribed. All the while, William Boyland Jr. concealed the fact that Rosen was bribing him. How did he do that. He fabricated a story for why Rosen was paying him. You will hear, for example, that Boyland had to tell the New York State Assembly about outside income. Like all members of the assembly, Boyland had to disclose who was paying him, how much he was being paid, what he was being paid for. The purpose of these disclosures was to make sure the work he did did not conflict with his duties as an assemblyman, that the payments were legitimate, that they were not disguised bribes. What did Boyland tell the assembly? He said was hired by Brookdale Hospital to advise on SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

29 1B14BOY1B Opening - Mr. Harrington community outreach. You will learn this is false. You will hear the employees of Brookdale Hospital responsible for community outreach. None of them had any idea that William Boyland Jr. was responsible for this. You will see summaries of the community outreach activities of the hospital in certain years. William Boyland Jr. isn't on them working for the hospital. In other words, in his statements to the assembly, he did everything he could to make it sound like this was a real consulting position, when in fact it was really a bribe. Years later, in 2009, you will hear that the state legislative ethics commission started looking into this. They inquired why Boyland had never told them how much he had made, something he was required to do. Boyland made false statements again. He claimed he was making only 5 to $20,000 a year, when in fact he was making twice that amount. How else did Boyland conceal his criminal relationship with David Rosen. You will hear that it 2010, as the scheme unraveled, the FBI went to interview Boyland. They asked him the common sense questions that any real consultant could answer; who do you work for, what do you do, how do you report your work. But Boyland knew this interview was trouble. Why. He knew he was under investigation for this relationship. What did Boyland do. He tried to cover his tracks again. You will hear that Boyland made false statements demonstrating he knew this relationship was criminal. You will SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

30 1B14BOY1B Opening - Mr. Harrington hear, for example, that Boyland denied ever speaking directly to David Rosen about his job after being elected to the assembly. He also claimed that he was never a consultant for the hospital. Boyland designed these false statements to conceal the simple truth. David Rosen was bribing William Boyland Jr. and Boyland in exchange became Rosen's ally in Albany. Briefly, how will the government prove this case. Ladies and gentlemen, this is case where actions speak louder than words. Because this was a secret, illegal relationship, you will not hear what Boyland and Rosen said to one another. Instead you will see the evidence of what they did. That evidence will prove that their relationship was corrupt. What am I talking about here. First, you are going to see the checks, roughly $175,000 in payment to Boyland from Rosen's hospitals. Second, you are going to see the emails about how this all got started. You will see phone messages in which David Rosen's secretary records Boyland's complaints about having to swipe in. You will see emails in which David Rosen directs his finance department to pay Boyland the same exact salary that Boyland was making as a full-time employee without having to show up anymore. Third, you will see documents proving what Boyland really did for Rosen's hospitals. For example, you will see SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

31 1B14BOY1B Opening - Mr. Harrington letters that Boyland sent to the leader of the assembly asking that millions of dollars be given to Rosen's hospitals. Finally, you will hear from witnesses. You will hear from Boyland's old supervisors and from the employees responsible for community outreach and patient recruitment, the assignments that Boyland claimed to have been hired for. They will say that they had no idea that Boyland became a consultant for the hospital in the fall of 2003. They had no idea he was still being paid by the hospital. They had no knowledge that he was doing anything for the hospital at all. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a straightforward case. We do not expect this to be a long trial. Over the coming days, you will hear from the witnesses who will prove that the secret relationship between Boyland and Rosen was corrupt. You will see the documents that prove what was really going on, documents that prove that David Rosen paid William Boyland Jr. to be his ally in Albany. The witnesses and the documents will prove what Rosen and Boyland tried so hard to conceal. They prove what common sense will tell you, that Boyland is guilty of taking bribes. THE COURT: Thank you very much. Now we will hear from defense counsel. MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, your Honor. Judge Rakoff, counsel, Mr. Boyland, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Once again, my name is a Richard Rosenberg. I along with Michael SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

32 1B14BOY1B Opening - Mr. Rosenberg Bachrach, it's our privilege and great responsibility to represent William Boyland Jr. This case is a simple accusation. It boils town to one thing. Was William Boyland Jr. as an assemblyman between years 2003 and 2008 on the take from David Rosen, CEO of MediSys, on the take in that he used his official position and took official actions as an assemblyman in exchange for money that the government says for work he never provided, services that he never provided. This case is not about whether or not William Boyland Jr. was paid. There is no dispute about that. You will see the checks, approximately $35,000 a year from 2003 to 2008. What this case is about is whether or not Mr. Boyland accepted that money with the understanding that it was a bribe. What this case is about is whether he used his official action as a result of a corrupt relationship and agreement with David Rosen. If the government fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Boyland had that intention when he accepted those moneys, they have failed to prove their case and Mr. Boyland is not guilty. If they fail to prove that he took his official action because he was being paid a bribe, they have failed and you must acquit. This case, the government's case rests then really on one thing and that is Mr. Boyland's state of mind and their SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

33 1B14BOY1B Opening - Mr. Rosenberg ability, it rests on the ability of the government to prove to your satisfaction that Mr. Boyland had that corrupt intent to utilize his official position as a result of a corrupt agreement with David Rosen. As this case unfolds you are going to find that the government's case rests really on cynicism, speculation, and suspicion because you are not going to find evidence of that unlawful agreement or that scenario, if you will, that Mr. Harrington opened up with, the scenario where Mr. Boyland approached David Rosen and insisted or wanted a way to collect his salary without showing up. There will be no evidence of that. There will be and be reduced to a theory, a suspicion and speculation, and that the judge will instruct you at the proper time is not evidence. There are not going to be any smoking gun conversations where you can point to and say there it is. That is not going to be happening in this trial. There is not going to be not one document, not one email that's going to evidence a corrupt relationship and arrangement between Mr. Boyland and David Rosen. What the government ignores and what you will find is that there was a universe of circumstances, realities that made the relationship and the arrangement between David Rosen and William Boyland not only human, logical, totally lawful, and one that made total business sense. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

34 Opening - Mr. Rosenberg You are going to hear during the course of this trial something about the Boyland name. You are going to find out it was and is a brand name in Ocean Hill, Brownsville, Brooklyn. That is the assembly district that Mr. Boyland represented and which he is a part of a legacy of more than 30 years of people in his family who have represented Ocean Hill, Brownsville. You will hear and learn that Mr. Boyland's uncle Thomas back in the 70s a was New York State assemblyman for Ocean Hill, Brownsville, that he Thomas was succeeded in office by my client's father, William F. Also you will hear him referred to as Frank Boyland. That Frank Boyland held that seat for 20 years, until 2002 when he retired. That William Boyland Jr., the defendant, my client, was elected as a special election to his father's seat and his uncle's seat before that in 2003. Since that election, he's been reelected and reelected and reelected. It doesn't stop there. You will hear that Frank's daughter, my client's sister Tracy Boyland, was a New York City councilwoman from 1998 to 2005. The Boyland family you will hear was a preeminent, important name in the Brownsville community. You will hear testimony that if you are driving to Mr. Boyland's office in Brownsville, you will be driving down a street called Thomas Boyland Street. If you live in Brownsville and your kid goes to school, a public school, that kid might be going to Thomas Boyland Elementary School. If you SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1B14BOY1B

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

35 1B14BOY1B Opening - Mr. Rosenberg are going to a park on a Saturday, it might be one of two parks named after Thomas Boyland, a brand name in Brownsville. More than that, it's also a family that has been associated with healthcare for years and years and years. You will hear testimony that Frank Boyland as an assemblyman was regarded as a strong ally and champion of healthcare for underserved communities and his community in particular. You will hear testimony from the government's witnesses that he was regarded as a friend, a friend of Brookdale, and friend of Jamaica Hospital. Frank's wife, Ruby my client's mother, she worked for over 10 years at Jamaica Hospital as a supervisor. You will hear that my client started his work career at Brookdale Hospital in 1994, working, heading up volunteer services. You will learn that he himself was politically active at that time as a district leader before he became an assemblyman. You will learn that these dynamics existed with that family and who that family was in a community where Brookdale Hospital lies just at the outskirts and who is a major health provider for that community and a major employer as well. You will hear testimony that before Rosen came on the scene, his company MediSys didn't take over Brookdale Hospital until year 2000. Before that a person by the name of Frank Maddalena was CEO of Brookdale Hospital. You will hear how Brookdale Hospital was in financial trouble as many SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

36 1B14BOY1B Opening - Mr. Rosenberg not-for-profit hospitals whose service Medicare and Medicaid patients primarily are in trouble. You will hear how under Maddalena in the late 90s, that Brookdale was interested and needed to market themselves to the community and the other surrounding communities, so they opened up six satellite clinics. (Continued on next page)

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

37 Opening - Mr. Rosenberg MR. ROSENBERG: One of those clinics was located in Brownsville. And that one was particularly unique of all the clinics that they opened, because for that one, they partnered with a not-for-profit organization called Urban Strategies, Inc., which was a Brownsville charity that was concerned with runaway teens, teen pregnancies. But they had a big name. They were a service charity for years and years. And Brookdale partnered with them. Why? Because Urban Strategies had a name as a provider of services to the community. The deal was that Brookdale would staff the clinic, would provide the services, the Urban Strategies name would appear on the clinic's title. So it was known as Urban Strategies Brookdale Family Center. This is before David Rosen. And so it was a natural, if you will, in order to market this particular satellite clinic and to bring patients into that clinic, to create income, if you will, for Brookdale hospital, to shift William Boyland from the Brookdale campus, where he had worked with the volunteers, over to Urban Strategists. And you'll hear testimony that he was brought there to be an outreach person; he was brought there because of his contacts and his influence in the community with community leaders. His home turf, if you will, bringing in the brand name. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1B1VBOY2

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

38 Opening - Mr. Rosenberg Now, the government is going to parade witness after witness that is going to say, Well -- as Mr. Harrington said in his opening -- he didn't do any job; he didn't do anything for Brookdale. The evidence is going to show that Mr. Boyland's duties, if you will, or his job, or the market outreach, all occurred outside the office. He didn't work from the clinic. There's no dispute that he didn't punch in after his election, and he became a consultant in 2003. And there were problems with him not punching in according to his supervisors before his election. So this suggestion of a no-show job is really a distraction from what was basically a good-will arrangement, bringing on a Boyland to be the name and the face of an outreach to a community and to build trust. So when David Rosen came along with MediSys in 2000/2001, him being a veteran of the hospital industry, head of Jamaica Hospital who knew his father, who knew that young William Boyland was a district leader himself, had these ties to the community, that he continued on in that position with Urban Strategies. And after he was elected, it made perfect sense, perfect business sense. As every businessperson knows that intangible called good will, good will to the community, good will to the market that you are trying to capture and growing to keep William Boyland on, gain the trust and confidence of the community, as well as get the feedback from SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1B1VBOY2

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

39 1B1VBOY2 Opening - Mr. Rosenberg the community that no other source could rely. And the evidence is going to show that unlike what Mr. Harrington says, there was no secret about this arrangement. You might think that a bribe would be paid under the table, but there were no payments under a table. Management -- and by "management," I mean the CFO of this corporation, top people in payroll, people associated with the executive staff -- all knew that William Boyland, Jr., after 2003, was being paid as a consultant. They all knew that his line or he was shifted from a W-2 worker to a 1099. The budget reports prepared for Brookdale showed him as a 1099 consultant. And everybody knew he did not have to punch, he did not have to clock in, just like any other consultant. You'll learn, too, that MediSys, in their required filings with the state, revealed the relationship between them and William Boyland. And you'll learn that William Boyland, for his part, each year that it was required to at the assembly, reported his consulting arrangement with Brookdale Hospital. Now, every bribe has got to have its payoff. Why else do you bribe someone? This government would have you believe that for this $35,000 a year for five, six years, they got three letters that William Boyland wrote seeking funding for Brookdale Hospital and Jamaica Hospital. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

40 Opening - Mr. Rosenberg What you're going to learn is that these letters are really just an initial step and a process, a legislative process, that is complex, that is involved, that involves committee study, that is not an automatic by any means. But what you're going to find out through testimony in this trial is that William Boyland made other requests for funding, not just for Jamaica Hospital, not just for Brookdale. But his responsibilities as an assemblyman were to make such requests, and he did so for other entities, even around the exact times that he wrote these letters for Brookdale and for Jamaica. Of course, you'll find out, as the government concedes, that none of these requests even went anywhere, because, as I say, it is a long, involved process. And the letters are absolutely no guarantee of funding. But, more importantly, you'll learn that David Rosen and MediSys did not need a freshman assemblyman to be on the take. They had their own lobby machine in place. They had staff that prepared detailed presentations for budget proposals to state agencies; they were people who were known and respected by the Department of Health and other agencies and Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, for instance. They had their own track record; they were respected. They had their own lobby machine. They themselves -- and when I say "they," I mean Rosen, his CFO, his COO -- would make their regular trips to Albany and around to legislator after SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1B1VBOY2

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

41 1B1VBOY2 Opening - Mr. Rosenberg legislator presenting their budget meetings. They belonged to hospital associations which traveled as a group and made proposals. They didn't need a freshman assemblyman on the take year, after year, after year, after year, after year, after year to write three letters. This is what you're going to hear that makes this kind of case so distasteful, with these allegations so distasteful. Bill Boyland's official acts and any official act that is shown in this courtroom during this trial were all totally consistent with his responsibility to his community, to his district. MR. HARRINGTON: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to instruct you later at some length on the law, and it may be that it will be a little bit different from what one counsel or another may be arguing. Remember that what counsel says is not only not evidence, but they are not the persons from whom you take your legal instructions. I will give you the precise relevant legal instructions in due course. But against that background, I'll allow counsel to continue. MR. ROSENBERG: This is serious business. Don't let suspicion, speculation, substitute for facts substitute for evidence. Hold the government to its burden of proof in this SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

42 1B1VBOY2 Opening - Mr. Rosenberg case, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I submit that if you evaluate the evidence, and I submit further if you evaluate the significant lack of evidence in this case, pay close attention, follow Judge Rakoff's instructions at the end of the case, and if you do that, you will do your job as jurors in an American court of justice when, after you have deliberated, you come back to this courtroom and you say, William Boyland, you are not guilty. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to give you your lunch break now. And you should be back in the jury room say about two or three minutes before 2 o'clock so that we can start promptly at 2 o'clock. But you are excused till then. You can just go back to the jury room and then straight onto lunch. (Jury excused) THE COURT: Please be seated. So there were a number of statements that defense counsel made in his opening statement that seemed to me legally problematic. For example, that defense counsel said something about that the letters are just the first stage in the process. I don't understand why that matters. If a bribe was paid to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

43 1B1VBOY2 obtain the writing of a letter, and that was just the first step in the process, so what? It would still meet all the requirements of the statutes that we're concerned with. In an otherwise highly professional opening, I just think counsel needs to be a little more punctilious. MR. ROSENBERG: I'll just say this, Judge: I'm just trying to convey to the jury that the briber has to have a motive and a good reason to bribe. And it just throws some question as to the reasonableness of such a bribe to write a letter. THE COURT: Well, if your argument was -- I mean this is why I didn't sua sponte interrupt. If the argument was that it's improbable that the parties would enter into this agreement because this is trivial, or something like that, I could see that might be an admissible argument. But the way it came out, it could have been construed by the jury as, in effect, no harm, no foul, which would not be a proper defense. MR. ROSENBERG: Well, if it came out that way, it wasn't meant that way. THE COURT: That's why I'm just saying we need to be very careful here. MR. ROSENBERG: OK. THE COURT: I just wanted to flag that issue. Yes. MR. HARRINGTON: We are not asking the Court to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

44 1B1VBOY2 revisit the decision that the Court made last week now, but I do want to flag the issue now. During his argument, Mr. Rosenberg made a very strong case to the jury that there's no reason for David Rosen to bribe; he has a lobbying machine, he has professional people who can make charts; he has no motive to do this. And we, in fact, have evidence that Mr. Rosen bribed not just this defendant, but two others. And the response to this argument the defense is making is really David Rosen had many levels of power, and he would avail himself of the illegal ones, as well. THE COURT: Well, it's not a question of revisiting. What you're saying is what I said at the time I made my ruling, which is if anyone opens the door, they do so at their peril. So if and when you think the door has been opened, we'll hear argument on that issue at that time. But I guess, at a very minimum, what you've done is flag the issue for all concerns. MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. THE COURT: All right. Anything else? Very good. We'll see you at 2 o'clock. (Luncheon recess) A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 2:09 P.M. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1B1VBOY2 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

45

(In open court; jury not present) THE COURT: All right. We are missing Juror No. 3, who -- please be seated -who is Alternate No. 1 originally and, because of that unfortunate tooth problem that the original Juror No. 3 had, had to be substituted. MR. BACHRACH: Your Honor, can I finish a housekeeping matter? THE COURT: Yes. MR. BACHRACH: We provided your Honor this morning with some new exhibits, new defense exhibits. One of them, DX12, may have been the wrong -- we may have marked the wrong exhibit. It's not something that we're going to bring in for a couple more days, I don't think. So I haven't turned that one over to the government yet because I don't think it's the right exhibit. We hope to have that resolved by tomorrow morning. I just wanted to alert you. THE COURT: Oh, OK. So since my father was a physician, I know that it is in the genes of physicians to keep everyone waiting; but, on the other hand, I'm a little concerned, because that juror was also the one who had expressed some disappointment with her -sounded like a state court matter -- contract action that she had. But let's wait a few more minutes. I would say if SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

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

46 1B1VBOY2 she's not here by 20 after, I would be inclined maybe to replace her. Let's wait and see. All right. So we'll take a ten-minute break. Now, this is very strange; very strange, indeed. All the jurors are asked, of course, to fill out a form with their name, address, phone number, and so forth, so that we can reach them. And she did not fill out the form. That really gives me pause. MR. BACHRACH: Same juror, your Honor? THE COURT: Same originally Alternate 1, now No. 3. What happens is my courtroom deputy gives them a form, just leaves it to them to fill it out and give it back. So we didn't realize till now that every other juror had filled out the form, of course, but not her. Now, on the other hand, she seemed to be right from the beginning attentively taking notes. So maybe I'm reading too much into this. My courtroom deputy points out, of course, we do have -- down in the jury room we have independently her contact information; but that will only be if we feel we were going to have to take some action. All right. Well, let's do this: Let's take a five-minute break. And if she's not back, we'll reconvene and see where we are. (Recess) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1B1VBOY2 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

47

THE COURT: So our fears are all unfounded. Juror No. 3 had been a little late, but she was then stuck in security. And she had actually called downstairs. So we just found that out in chambers. So she is now here, she has filled out the contact information, and we are ready to proceed. So let's get the witness on the stand, and let's bring in the jury. (Jury present) THE COURT: So, ladies and gentlemen, we are about to begin the taking of the evidence in this case. The little delay that we just had makes me feel the need to mention that the security line downstairs is temperamental. Sometimes it takes two minutes to get through security, and sometimes it takes 15 minutes. So bear that in mind when you're planning ahead, because that can sometimes be a problem. So please call your first witness. MR. MCGORTY: Thank you, your Honor. The government calls Phoebe Layne to the stand. PHOEBE LAYNE, called as a witness by the Government, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: THE DEPUTY CLERK: Please be seated. State your name and spell it slowly for the record. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300