Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JOSEPH L. BRUNO,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------- x
in Limine to Exclude Evidence and to Bar the Government from Constructively Amending the
INTRODUCTION
In the face of repeated challenges, the government has urged that it should be permitted
to introduce at trial evidence ofMr. Bruno's alleged conduct spanning fourteen years-well
before the statute-of-limitations period applicable to this case-on the theory that such evidence
is relevant to Mr. Bruno's alleged creation of a single, long-running criminal scheme. Having
made such a charge in the Indictment, the government must now be held to its word. If the
government does not establish at trial that the disparate and unrelated conduct it alleged Mr.
Bruno engaged with respect to various of his consulting firms' clients constituted a single,
uniform scheme, then its theory-of-the-case at trial will impermissibly vary from the terms of the
permitted to abandon its single-scheme theory in favor of a more limited approach, however,
any evidence ofMr. Bruno's time-barred acts must be excluded at trial, as they are irrelevant and
and/or variances from the Indictment requires that the government, in advance of trial, finally
make clear which of its counts against Mr. Bruno are based upon the theory that he failed to
disclose a conflict of interest and which upon the theory that he failed to disclose a unlawful gift.
ARGUMENT
The Indictment alleges that Mr. Bruno participated in a scheme to defraud the citizens of
the State of New York from 1993 to 2006. This alleged singular scheme involved 36 separate
- 1-
entities-20 different corporations, Indictment at ~~ 11-16, 60, and 16 different labor unions,
Indictment at ~ 22. It further alleges potential misconduct relating to various contracts and
agreements Mr. Bruno entered into over a 14-year period. But, despite the litany of companies
and persons named in the Indictment and the lengthy 14-year time span alleged, the actual
charges only relate to 9 of the 36 entities and involve mailings and/or wires from 2004 to 2006.
Indictment at ~~ 65-66. Having justified the Indictment's breadth based on the claim that this
historical conduct remains relevant to prove that Mr. Bruno participated in a single, long-ranging
criminal scheme, the government cannot constitutionally abandon that argument at trial.
The Sixth Amendment requires that a criminal defendant "be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation," U.S. Const., amend. VI, and the Fifth Amendment protects a
defendant's "due process" trial rights. U.S. Const., amend. V; see also United States v.
Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 619 (2d Cir. 2003) (requiring defendant to be "given notice of the core
of criminality to be proven at trial"); United States v. Seeger, 303 F.2d 478 (2d Cir. 1962)
(reversing conviction based on government's failure to provide defendant with fair notice of the
charges against him). This constitutional guarantee binds the government to the theory of
criminality it presented to the grand jury, lest it constructively amend the Indictment through its
presentation of a different theory to the petit jury. "To prevail on a constructive amendment
claim, a defendant must demonstrate that ... it is uncertain whether the defendant was convicted
of conduct that was the subject of the grand jury's indictment." Salmonese, 352 F.3d at 620.
Similarly, "[a] variance occurs when the charging terms of the indictment are left unaltered, but
the evidence offered at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the
-2-
In this case, the government has consistently alleged that Mr. Bruno engaged in a single,
wide-ranging criminal scheme to defraud-one that began in or about 1993 and continued
through December 2006. Indictment at ~ 18; see also Dkt. No. 28, Gov't Omnibus Resp., at 28
(justifying references to time-barred conduct as relevant to "establish the existence of the single
scheme alleged in the Indictment"). As a result, if the government abandons that theory at trial
in favor of a more limited view, then it will have unconstitutionally varied from the charge in the
Indictment. Having presented the case to the grand jury on one theory, the government cannot
change course now-it must be held to the burden of proving that which it submitted to the
grand jury.
Within the scheme that the government has charged, it still does not have free reign to
introduce evidence that is stale, of little relevance to the present case, and unduly prejudicial to
Mr. Bruno. As the Court is aware, Mr. Bruno has repeatedly challenged the government's
reliance on this stale conduct, including alleged conduct that dates long before the relevant
statute oflimitations in this case. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 16,23. The government's response has
been to insist that this evidence is somehow relevant to establish the existence of an alleged
single criminal scheme. Dkt. No. 28, Gov't Omnibus Resp., at 28. If the government's theory of
the case now changes-and the government seeks to prove multiple schemes-then the
government has similarly abandoned the only basis upon which to allow it to present such
evidence at trial. But even under the single-scheme theory, any marginal relevance that this
evidence has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and, therefore,
inadmissible at trial.
-3-
Having already set forth the legal bases for excluding this evidence in prior motions, Mr.
Bruno will not detain the Court by repeating them in excessive detail here. See generally Dkt.
Nos. 16, 23. Rather, as the Court has previously stated that the admissibility of this evidence
would be best addressed as a trial issue, Dkt. No. 48 at 11, Mr. Bruno now renews his challenge
First, these prior alleged acts are irrelevant and unnecessary to prove anything in the
government's case. For example, the government has labored to introduce time-barred
allegations involving McGinn Smith, an investment banking and brokerage firm that allegedly
paid Mr. Bruno over $630,000 to steer labor unions its way so it could execute the trades of
union fund assets as directed by Wright Investors' Service ("Wright"). Indictment at ~~ 13, 21,
35-40. The indictment further alleges that Mr. Bruno received these payments from McGinn
Smith from 1993 through 2005, and that Mr. Bruno concealed the source of this income in
annual financial disclosure filings and failed to properly disclose his job duties for McGinn
Smith in his request for an ethics opinion in 1993. None of these allegations are crimes that Mr.
Bruno has been charged with in this case, nor are they necessary to prove any of the counts
alleged in the indictment. McGinn Smith has not been named as an entity receiving or sending
any of the alleged mailings or wires in the Indictment. Because none of the alleged counts
involve mailings or wires that were sent to or received from McGinn Smith, there can be no
allegation relating to McGinn Smith that makes it "more or less probable" that Mr. Bruno
engaged in honest services fraud by failing to adequately report income he received from other
companies as alleged in counts 1-8 of the Indictment-unless the government wishes to make
the exact type of conformity-of-conduct argument that is expressly prohibited. See Fed. R. Evid.
404(b). To allow the government to sneak in this kind of propensity character evidence under a
-4-
lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt would be unfairly prejudicial to Mr. Bruno and is
prohibited under the federal rules and Second Circuit precedent. See Fed. R. Evid. 403, 404(b);
see also United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2006) (vacating conviction in part due
to improper admission of extrinsic act evidence); Hynes v. Coughlin, 79 F.3d 285,292 (2d Cir.
1996) (reversing conviction where admission of extrinsic act evidence as a way to show criminal
propensity held to be improper). Thus, Mr. Bruno's relationship with McGinn Smith, except for
how McGinn Smith introduced him to Wright, is not relevant to the case and only serves to
unfairly inflate the financial magnitude of the alleged scheme.' At trial, the government must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bruno intentionally committed honest services fraud
through the use of the mails and wires from 2004 to 2006, the only actionable time period at
issue. Events occurring prior to this time are not relevant and constitute unlawful propensity
Second, Federal Rule of Evidence 403 requires exclusion of these prior acts because they
are unduly prejudicial to Mr. Bruno and unfairly magnify the size and scope of the alleged
scheme. While the indictment alleges that Mr. Bruno has obtained over $3.1 million unlawfully,
it fails to mention that this figure is largely comprised of funds Mr. Bruno allegedly received
before 2004-for example, including over $630,000 that came from McGinn Smith. Indictment
Defendant Bruno will agree to stipulate that McGinn Smith introduced him to Wright,
which is the only fact concerning McGinn Smith that is relevant to any charge alleged in the
indictment. This kind of limitation protects both parties-it eliminates the need to subject Mr.
Bruno to the risk of unfair prejudice while recognizing the prosecution's interest in introducing
background facts to help the jury to understand the alleged charges. United States v. Anzalone,
783 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1986) (recommending trial courts consider how some compromise or
limitation may protect both parties' interests when determining whether to admit time-barred
evidence).
-5-
at ~ 38. As McGinn Smith was not involved in any of the mailings or wire communications that
form the basis of the charges in the Indictment, payments it allegedly made to Mr. Bruno prior to
the start of the statute oflimitations period have no bearing on this case, and are clearly being
included simply to artificially inflate the apparent magnitude of the government's charges against
Mr. Bruno. Similarly, the government included in its estimate $477,000 in payments from
Leonard 1. Fassler and his affiliated companies from 1993 to June 2003, Indictment at ~ 42,
conduct that certainly is time-barred. Furthermore, the government also sought to rely upon
payments Mr. Bruno allegedly received from Wright Investors' Service from 1994 to June 2003,
Indictment at ~ 21-more time-barred conduct that could account for hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
Even if the government were to suggest that such evidence is relevant to show
background, knowledge, or intent, this is insufficient to overcome the balancing test under
Federal Rules of Evidence 403. Where the court determines such evidence would be cumulative,
confusing to the jury or unfairly prejudicial to the defendant, it must not be admitted. See, e.g.,
Nachamie, 101 F. Supp. 2d 134 (excluding prior similar act evidence upon finding of unfair
prejudice to defendant).
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U. S. 172, 180 (1997). Where there is unfair prejudice to the
defendant that substantially outweighs any probative value, exclusion is proper. See Malarkey,
983 F.2d 1204; Wingfield, 678 F. Supp. at 983 (granting defendant's motion in limine to exclude
time-barred evidence because it would "confuse the jury, unfairly prejudice the defendant, and
unduly delay the trial."). Where the government intends to offer voluminous evidence of the
-6-
crimes charged, there is little reason why a trial court needs to prolong a trial by offering other
acts alleged to have been committed by the defendant. See United States v. Basciano, 2006 WL
385325, at *6-7 (B.D.N.Y Feb. 17,2006). Thus, the Court should bar the government from
Third, neither mail or wire fraud constitute continuing offenses, so Mr. Bruno should not
be made to defend against such stale charges. While Mr. Bruno recognizes that the statute of
limitations does not serve as an absolute bar to the admission of pre-limitation evidence,
Fitzgerald v. Henderson, 251 F.3d 345, 365 (2d Cir. 2001), the purpose behind such limitations
defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the
passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-
distant past." United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 323 (1971). "Passage of time ... may
impair memories, cause evidence to be lost, deprive the defendant of witnesses, and otherwise
interfere with his ability to defend himself." Id. at 321,322 (holding limitations statutes provide
defendant's right to afair trial would be prejudiced' (emphasis added)); United States v. Rivera-
Ventura, 72 F.3d 277, 281 (2d Cir. 1995) (finding statutes oflimitations are "designed
principally to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges supported by
facts that are remote in time."). The Supreme Court cautions that federal courts should be
reluctant to subject defendants to criminal prosecution for stale allegations occurring outside the
applicable limitations period, and should do so only in rare circumstances where the alleged
crime constitutes a continuing offense. Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 115 (1970)
-7-
(deeming an offense continuing for statute of limitation purposes only when "the explicit
language of the substantive criminal statue compels such a conclusion, or the nature of the crime
involved is such that Congress must assuredly have intended that it be treated as a continuing
one")?
Where, as here, the mail and wire fraud statutes "contemplate]'] an offense that can be
completed in a single act," United States v. Rumore, 2008 WL 2755827, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 14,
2008), the offense cannot be considered continuing. Even where the defendant is charged with
repeated violations of a federal fraud statute over a period of time pursuant to the same scheme,
that does not transform this crime into a continuing offense for statute of limitations purposes.
United States v. Motz, 2009 WL 2486132 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14,2009) (granting partial dismissal
upon finding that securities fraud statue did not constitute a continuing offense even where
defendant allegedly committed multiple securities fraud violations); cf United States v. Rivlin,
2007 WL 4276712 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2007) (finding embezzlement is not a continuing offense).
Nowhere in the plain language of the mail or wire fraud statues is there any reference to them
being continuous offenses. Thus, by the "explicit language" of these statutes, neither mail nor
wire fraud can said to be continuing offenses. Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115.
It makes little sense that acts that are too stale to be prosecuted directly should be allowed
to be introduced at trial under a lower standard of proof to support the prosecution of unrelated
activities falling within the limitations period. The government should not be permitted to
bootstrap these stale unrelated allegations to bolster a weak case that amounts to, at most, state or
2
Indeed, initial review of the Jencks material provided by the government confirms that
many witnesses in the case simply do not remember facts going back fourteen years-making
these archetypal stale-evidence concerns particularly relevant to this case.
- 8-
ethical law violations. This violates the spirit behind the enactment of statutes of limitations
generally and, as stated above, it is not necessary for the government to prove conduct involving
27 unrelated entities when the charges alleged in the Indictment refer to nine specific entities and
specific mailings and wires. The focus of the jury should relate to whether the government has
met its burden with respect to Counts 1 through 8 and not on what Mr. Bruno's legitimate
Thus, even if the government retains its single-scheme theory, the prejudicial impact
inherent in allowing the government to bootstrap its case through stale accusations warrants
III. The Government Should Be Required to Identify the Legal Theory for Each
Count of the Indictment to Avoid the Possibility of an Unconstitutional
Variance and/or Constructive Amendment to the Indictment.
To provide Mr. Bruno the "fair notice" that is constitutionally mandated, Mr. Bruno
requests the Court also require the government to articulate the precise basis underlying each of
its counts against him. Although the government has been clear that it general case against Mr.
Bruno is based on the general theory that he committed honest services fraud by failing to
disclose material information, it has not specified whether, on a count-by-count basis, it argues
that Mr. Bruno failed to disclose either a conflict of interest or an unlawful gift. Understanding
the government's legal theory behind each count in the Indictment is fundamental to Mr. Bruno's
ability to mount an effective defense. Knowing what the government alleges that he failed to
disclose and where those disclosures were supposed to be made is also critical to his ability to
prepare for trial. Moreover, this request is necessary to assure that Mr. Bruno is not tried on
allegations that are different than what the grand jury authorized-yet another unconstitutional
constructive amendment to and/or variance from the Indictment. See Salmonese, 352 F.3d at
620.
-9-
This concern is compounded by the government's most recent disclosures. Although the
Indictment alleges that all ofMr. Bruno's alleged nondisclosures relate to the way in which Mr.
Bruno filled out state ethics and financial disclosure forms, the discovery in this case now
suggests that the government may also attempt to present a broader theory based on disclosures
Mr. Bruno made or did not make to other authorities, including the press, labor unions, the
Securities & Exchange Commission, and other members in the State legislature. To avoid any
risk of an unconstitutional variance, the government should also be required to detail, by count,
not only what information Mr. Bruno allegedly failed to disclose, but also exactly what he
allegedly was required to reveal and where he was required to make such additional disclosures.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Mr. Bruno respectfully requests that the Court grant his Motion
in Limine to Bar the Government from Constructively Amending the Indictment or Causing an
Respectfully submitted,
- 10-
William J. Dreyer, Esq .
Dreyer Boyajian LLP
75 Columbia Street
Albany, NY 12210
Phone: 518-463-7784
Facsimile: 518-463-4039
- 11 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------- x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Case No. 09-CR-29 (GLS)
JOSEPH L. BRUNO,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------- x
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 13, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of the District Court using the CMlECF system, which sent notification of such filing to
the following:
- 12 -