Different styles or modus operandi?
Times Topics > People > B > Bruno, Joseph L.
Joseph L. Bruno
Jin Lee/Bloomberg News
Joseph L. Bruno, an upstate Republican, was majority leader of the New York State Senate from 1994 to June 2008. During that period, he was one of the “three men in a room,’' the common phrase for the way virtually all state business is settled in private by the governor and leaders of the Legislature’s two houses.
That power allowed Mr. Bruno to direct billions of dollars in public and private investment to the capital region, parts of which he represented as senator, and to win a long list of friends and allies. To his constituents, he was known simply as Joe, the dapper, grandfatherly figure whose earmarks provided thousands of dollars for local Little League teams and firefighter squads. But a federal investigation exploring his business dealings led him to resign in 2008, and in July he was indicted on eight federal felony counts.
In 2009, Mr. Bruno was found guilty on two of those and was sentenced to two years.
In November 2011, a federal appeals court overturned the corruption conviction of Mr. Bruno.
But the three-judge court rejected Mr. Bruno’s effort to avoid a new trial on charges that he committed fraud by taking bribes or kickbacks totaling at least $240,000 from a businessman seeking his help in the Legislature.
The decision overturning his conviction had been expected. Federal prosecutors conceded during his appeal that his 2009 conviction should be overturned because of a ruling in 2010 by the United States Supreme Court that undermined the government’s legal claims against him.
In a decision on an unrelated case the Supreme Court ruled that the federal honest-services law could not be used to prosecute defendants for hiding conflicts of interest. The court left open, however, the possibility of prosecution based on kickbacks and bribery.
The federal prosecutors in Albany have long said that they planned to retry Mr. Bruno, and they have said that they would seek a new indictment. In its unanimous ruling, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, rebuffed Mr. Bruno’s claim that a new trial would violate his right to avoid double jeopardy.
In unvarnished language, the panel said the prosecutors had presented evidence from which a new jury could conclude that Mr. Bruno violated a federal law that makes it a crime to deprive people of “honest services.”
The court said a new jury could conclude, for example, that one $40,000 payment was “an illegitimate gift” disguised as payment for a racehorse, Christy’s Night Out, that was not worth much.
Mr. Bruno has insisted that the case reflected nothing more than the fact that New York’s legislators often have other jobs. But the case was widely seen as a test of whether the courts could limit what have often been seen as lax ethical standards in Albany. The case highlighted how Mr. Bruno mixed private and government duties and, the appeals court said, showed that he used state employees to help him collect “exorbitant consulting fees.”
In their initial case, the federal prosecutors charged that Mr. Bruno committed fraud by failing to disclose conflicts of interest when he took money in exchange for help on government matters.
Background
The trial drew the kind of fascination not seen since 1991, when the Assembly speaker at the time, Mel Miller, went on trial for fraud. (His conviction was overturned in 1993.) Much of the case against Mr. Bruno hinged on the degree to which he disclosed potential conflicts of interest between his private business and his official duties, like soliciting pension fund investments from labor unions with interests before the Legislature.
In June 2008, amid signs that a federal investigation against Mr. Bruno was intensifying, he announced that he would not seek re-election and relinquished his leadership position. And in July 2008, he resigned from the Senate. He took a job as the chief executive officer of an information-technology company, CMA Consulting Services, that has numerous state contracts.
On Jan. 23, 2009, a federal grand jury indicted Mr. Bruno on eight counts including mail and wire fraud. Mr. Bruno was charged with reaping millions of dollars from companies seeking to do business with the state, or from labor unions, capping a long-running investigation into one of New York’s most powerful political figures.
Mr. Bruno was charged under an anti-corruption law making it a crime to deprive citizens of honest services from their elected officials. The Supreme Court ruled on June 24, 2010, that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and could no longer be used to prosecute officials for concealing a conflict of interest. But the ruling also left open the possibility that federal prosecutors might use the honest-services statute to prosecute state and local officials in bribery and kickback schemes.
During the 2009 trial, Mr. Bruno was accused of collecting more than $3 million over a 13-year period, beginning in 1993, from a handful of businessmen seeking state contracts and grants, as well as contracts to manage pension fund investments for at least 16 labor unions. Mr. Bruno repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
Two vastly different portraits of Mr. Bruno emerged from prosecutors and defense lawyers. Prosecutors described Mr. Bruno as a schoolyard bully whose political muscle in Albany was quietly deployed on behalf of his clients, including investment firms seeking union pension fund money and companies seeking state grants.
Mr. Bruno, the defense said, was a hardworking part-time lawmaker legally entitled to earn a living in the private sector and determined to follow the rules as best he understood them. The verdict capped a month-long trial that captivated the state political establishment and laid bare the unseemly side of New York’s Legislature, where most lawmakers hold down second jobs in the private sector but are required to disclose very little about what they are paid to do.
Prosecutors contended that Mr. Bruno had failed to disclose conflicts between his private business dealings and his official business as Senate majority leader, the powerful post that he held for almost 14 years. They also say he used a sham consulting business as a way to conceal the true nature of his business interests
Prosecutors brought forward more than 70 witnesses and a trove of over 200 e-mail messages as well as handwritten notes, calendar entries and memoranda, many culled from the historically secretive State Senate, which Republicans controlled under Mr. Bruno.
The trial also delved intimately into Mr. Bruno’s private business, which spanned work for more than a dozen companies during more than a decade and a half, earning Mr. Bruno roughly $3.2 million in fees.
Mr. Bruno has insisted that the case reflected nothing more than the fact that New York’s legislators often have other jobs. But the case was widely seen as a test of whether the courts could limit what have often been seen as lax ethical standards in Albany. The case highlighted how Mr. Bruno mixed private and government duties and, the appeals court said, showed that he used state employees to help him collect “exorbitant consulting fees.”
In their initial case, the federal prosecutors charged that Mr. Bruno committed fraud by failing to disclose conflicts of interest when he took money in exchange for help on government matters.
Background
The trial drew the kind of fascination not seen since 1991, when the Assembly speaker at the time, Mel Miller, went on trial for fraud. (His conviction was overturned in 1993.) Much of the case against Mr. Bruno hinged on the degree to which he disclosed potential conflicts of interest between his private business and his official duties, like soliciting pension fund investments from labor unions with interests before the Legislature.
In June 2008, amid signs that a federal investigation against Mr. Bruno was intensifying, he announced that he would not seek re-election and relinquished his leadership position. And in July 2008, he resigned from the Senate. He took a job as the chief executive officer of an information-technology company, CMA Consulting Services, that has numerous state contracts.
On Jan. 23, 2009, a federal grand jury indicted Mr. Bruno on eight counts including mail and wire fraud. Mr. Bruno was charged with reaping millions of dollars from companies seeking to do business with the state, or from labor unions, capping a long-running investigation into one of New York’s most powerful political figures.
Mr. Bruno was charged under an anti-corruption law making it a crime to deprive citizens of honest services from their elected officials. The Supreme Court ruled on June 24, 2010, that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and could no longer be used to prosecute officials for concealing a conflict of interest. But the ruling also left open the possibility that federal prosecutors might use the honest-services statute to prosecute state and local officials in bribery and kickback schemes.
During the 2009 trial, Mr. Bruno was accused of collecting more than $3 million over a 13-year period, beginning in 1993, from a handful of businessmen seeking state contracts and grants, as well as contracts to manage pension fund investments for at least 16 labor unions. Mr. Bruno repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
Two vastly different portraits of Mr. Bruno emerged from prosecutors and defense lawyers. Prosecutors described Mr. Bruno as a schoolyard bully whose political muscle in Albany was quietly deployed on behalf of his clients, including investment firms seeking union pension fund money and companies seeking state grants.
Mr. Bruno, the defense said, was a hardworking part-time lawmaker legally entitled to earn a living in the private sector and determined to follow the rules as best he understood them. The verdict capped a month-long trial that captivated the state political establishment and laid bare the unseemly side of New York’s Legislature, where most lawmakers hold down second jobs in the private sector but are required to disclose very little about what they are paid to do.
Prosecutors contended that Mr. Bruno had failed to disclose conflicts between his private business dealings and his official business as Senate majority leader, the powerful post that he held for almost 14 years. They also say he used a sham consulting business as a way to conceal the true nature of his business interests
Prosecutors brought forward more than 70 witnesses and a trove of over 200 e-mail messages as well as handwritten notes, calendar entries and memoranda, many culled from the historically secretive State Senate, which Republicans controlled under Mr. Bruno.
The trial also delved intimately into Mr. Bruno’s private business, which spanned work for more than a dozen companies during more than a decade and a half, earning Mr. Bruno roughly $3.2 million in fees.
No comments:
Post a Comment