<< All News

Bruno wants softer indictment wording

Lawyers say language is ''inflammatory'' and could prejudice jury

By BRENDAN J. LYONS, Senior writer
Click byline for more stories by writer.
First published: Tuesday, April 21, 2009

ALBANY -- Former Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno wants the federal government to tone down the language in an 8-count felony indictment that his attorneys say is inflammatory and prejudicial.
A motion filed last week by Bruno's defense team marks the case's first legal challenge and sets the stage for what is expected to be an intensive pre-trial battle.

The unusual defense motion attacks much of the language in the indictment, characterizing portions of the 35-page document as nothing more than an attempt by the government ''to prejudice Mr. Bruno and confuse the jury.'' The motion also alleges federal prosecutors have sought to amplify their allegations by including conduct by Bruno that predates a five-year statute of limitations.

''Prosecutors here have sought to make a federal crime out of alleged ethical lapses that do not even amount to a state law misdemeanor,'' the motion states. ''In some effort to justify and 'dress up' its charges against Mr. Bruno, the government has included allegations in the indictment that are not relevant to the crimes charged and are prejudicial and inflammatory.''

For instance, the defense has asked U.S. District Judge Gary L. Sharpe to strike a portion of a sentence which indicates the state of New York and its citizens paid Bruno for his honest services but as a result of his fraud they were deprived ''and instead received dishonest services.''

''There is no offense in the statute or case law called 'provision of dishonest services','' the defense motion states, calling the language ''superfluous and inflammatory.'' They asked that that portion of the sentence be removed.

The case is scheduled for trial in November and the indictment would be provided to a federal jury panel as a blueprint of the government's case during their deliberations.

Bruno, 80, was indicted Jan. 23 on eight charges of theft of honest services under federal mail and wire fraud statutes. The detailed, narrative-style indictment outlines suspicious business and political dealings of Bruno's dating to 1993 and continuing through 2006. If convicted on any of the charges Bruno could face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, although under federal sentencing guidelines he would likely face much less time behind bars.

The charges outline numerous instances where Bruno, while occupying the state's powerful position of Senate majority leader, allegedly concealed one after another payments steered to him personally by people and organizations seeking an advantage in state politics. The indictment claims that from 1993 through 2005, all of Bruno's annual financial disclosures, required by the state's Ethics in Government law, contained false, misleading and incomplete information.

The indictment also outlines a series of deals and business arrangements dating back to 1993 in which Bruno allegedly profited from companies or individuals who had an interest in state government. Bruno also steered labor unions to invest in companies that were paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars as a ''consultant,'' according to the indictment.

The government accuses Bruno of receiving more than $3.1 million in alleged payoffs between 1993 and 2006. But Bruno's attorneys, Abbe D. Lowell of Washington, D.C., and William J. Dreyer of Albany, said a large portion of those transactions took place before 2004 and therefore fall outside a five year statute of limitations, and the information should not be included in the indictment, according to the motion.

The indictment also describes ''schemes'' involving Bruno's use of public office to convince labor unions to steer their money management to Wright Investors Service, a Connecticut firm that paid him nearly $1.4 million from 1994 to 2006, and McGinn, Smith & Co., an Albany investment firm that paid Bruno $632,116 from 1993 to 2005. The firms ended up receiving investment advisory fees or brokerage fees paid by the union benefit funds.

Defense lawyers asked for the allegations tied to McGinn, Smith to be stricken from the indictment because, in part, ''the indictment does not allege ... a single mailing or wire transaction relating to McGinn, Smith that was sent to or received by Mr. Bruno.''

The defense team has asked for a hearing on their motion next month. Prosecutors have not filed a reply.

The indictment is the culmination of a more than three-year FBI investigation into the public and private dealings of Bruno. He retired from his state Senate seat in July after 32 years in legislative service.

Brendan J. Lyons can be reached at 454-5547 or by e-mail at blyons@timesunion.com.