United States v. Brennan, No. 85-CR-452.
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) |
| Writing for the Court | Daniel P. Hollman, Matthew L. Byrne, New York City, for defendant |
| Citation | 629 F. Supp. 283 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. William C. BRENNAN, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 03 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-CR-452. |
629 F. Supp. 283
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
William C. BRENNAN, Defendant.
No. 85-CR-452.
United States District Court, E.D. New York.
February 3, 1986.
Daniel P. Hollman, Matthew L. Byrne, New York City, for defendant.
REVISED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
WEINSTEIN, Chief Judge:
After an extensive jury trial the defendant, William C. Brennan, has been found guilty of soliciting and accepting a series of bribes to fix cases in his court over many years. This most serious of crimes attacks the foundation of our judicial system and the faith of citizens in its impartiality.
We have set forth below our explanation of the sentence in some detail for two reasons. First, many communications to the court and testimony of defendant's friends at the trial suggested that the crime is out of character. They emphasized the defendant's otherwise unblemished career as a public official and judge and his fine family and community background. Second, it is important for the public to understand that such a crime by a judge is almost unique in the recent annals of New York courts and that it will not be tolerated.
I. THE CRIMES
Six separate bribe transactions were charged and proved. Since each telephone call and trip in connection with an interstate crime, as well as each bribe itself, is a separate crime, twenty-six separate felonies were committed. Set out below is a table briefly describing the twenty-six crimes, the applicable statutes and the statutory maximum penalties.
CRIMES AND PENALTIES
====================
Count Description of Crime Statute Maximum Maximum Assessment
Imprisonment Fine
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 RICO: 2 or more
predicate crimes in
aid of racketeering 18 U.S.C. § 1962 20 years $ 25,000 $ 50
2 Conspiracy to
commit RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) 20 years 25,000 50
3 Interstate travel in
aid of racketeering
Romano case
11/28/80 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) 5 years 10,000 50
4 Interstate telephone
call in aid of
racketeering
Romano case
12/07/80; call from
Florida 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) 5 years 10,000 50
5 Interstate telephone
call in aid of
racketeering
Romano case
12/07/80; call from
Queens 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) 5 years 10,000 50
6 Interstate telephone
call in aid of
racketeering:
Romano case
12/07/80; call from
Florida 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) 5 years 10,000 50
7 Interstate telephone
call in aid of
racketeering:
Romano case
12/09/80; call from
Florida 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) 5 years 10,000 50
629 F. Supp. 287Count Description of Crime Statute Maximum Maximum Assessment Imprisonment Fine ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Interstate telephone call in aid of racketeering: Romano case 12/09/80; call from Florida 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) 5 years $ 10,000 $ 50 9 Interstate telephone call in aid of racketeering: Romano case 12/10/80; call from Florida 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) 5 years 10,000 50 10 Interstate travel in aid of racketeering: Romano case 12/10/80; call from Florida 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) 5 years 10,000 50 11 Wire fraud: Romano case 12/07/80; call from Florida to Queens 18 U.S.C. § 1343 5 years 1,000 50 12 Wire fraud: Romano case 12/07/80; call from Queens to Florida 18 U.S.C. § 1343 5 years 1,000 50 13 Wire fraud: Romano case 12/07/80; call from Florida to Floral Park 18 U.S.C. § 1343 5 years 1,000 50 14 Wire fraud: Romano case 12/09/80; call from Florida to Queens 18 U.S.C. § 1343 5 years 1,000 50 15 Wire fraud: Romano case 12/09/80; call from Florida to Floral Park 18 U.S.C. § 1343 5 years 1,000 50 16 Wire fraud: Polisi case, 12/10/80 18 U.S.C. § 1343(a) 5 years 1,000 50 17 Interstate telephone call in aid of racketeering: Polisi case, 02/01/85 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) 5 years 10,000 50 18 Interstate travel in aid of racketeering: Polisi case, 02/02/85 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) 5 years 10,000 50 19 Interstate travel in aid of racketeering: Polisi case, 02/13/85 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) 5 years 10,000 50 20 Interstate travel in aid of racketeering: Polisi case, 02/17/85 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) 5 years 10,000 50
629 F. Supp. 288Count Description of Crime Statute Maximum Maximum Assessment Imprisonment Fine ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 Interstate telephone call in aid of racketeering: Polisi case, 02/20/85 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) 5 years $ 10,000 $ 50 22 Interstate telephone call in aid of racketeering: Polisi case, 02/20/85 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) 5 years 10,000 50 23 Wire fraud: Polisi case, 02/01/85 18 U.S.C. § 1343 5 years 1,000 50 24 Wire fraud: Polisi case, 02/20/85 18 U.S.C. § 1343 5 years 1,000 50 25 Wire fraud: Polisi case, 02/22/85 18 U.S.C. § 1343 5 years 1,000 50 26 Interference with commerce by attempted extortion: Polisi case 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) 20 years 10,000 50 _________ ________ ______ TOTALS 175 years $209,000 $1,300
Since penalties can be cumulative the maximum term of imprisonment to which the defendant is liable is 175 years and the maximum fine is $209,000. It is unusual to cumulate terms of imprisonment. The issue is where, between 0 to 20 years in prison and $0 to $209,000 for a fine, should penalties be fixed.
A mandatory assessment of $50 for each felony count of which the defendant was convicted totals $1300. This cumulative penalty is required by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. See 18 U.S.C. § 3013. Receipts collected under the assessment statute are used to create a fund to assist crime victims. See S.Rep. No. 497, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 3182, 3607.
While defendant received much more in bribes, the government seeks forfeiture of only $14,000. 18 U.S.C. § 1963. The reason for this reduced demand is discussed below.
A. FACTS
Investigation of the defendant's activities began early in 1981 when a confidential informant told federal officials that William C. Brennan, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, State of New York, sitting in Criminal Term, could be bribed. Other informants confirmed these allegations. They were, in brief, that the defendant, who was first elected to the Supreme Court of Queens County in 1970 and reelected for another fourteen year term in 1984, began to take bribes shortly after his first election. Since Judge Brennan was responsible for presiding over felony cases in the main courthouse of Queens his opportunity to corrupt justice was apparent.
Key government witnesses were Anthony Bruno, a restauranteur, associate of criminals and long-time friend of the defendant; and Nicholas Botta and Salvatore Polisi, two recidivists with substantial connections to the underworld. There were a large number of supporting witnesses. Extensive interlocking telephone calls automatically recorded on telephone company billing records showed Bruno's relationships with the defendant and various criminals in connection with the bribes. Surveillances, court-authorized wiretaps and bugging during the course of the investigation and one wiretap independent of the investigation confirmed much of the details of the testimony. Data in court records demonstrated how the cases were disposed of.
The defendant received and made bribe related telephone calls in the courthouse.
The defense consisted almost entirely of character witnesses who testified that the defendant's background was incompatible with the accusations. The defendant did not take the stand despite the damning testimony against him which was not shaken by defense counsel's vigorous cross-examination. Had he done so, he would have had to either perjure himself or admit that he was strongly influenced in his disposition of cases by his friend, Anthony Bruno, who was acting on behalf of criminals. He might have denied taking cash, but he would have had to admit activities devastating to his career as a judge, requiring his immediate removal from office.
We set out below a brief synopsis of various instances of defendant's corruption between 1972 and 1985.
1. JOSEPH PASTORE
In the early 1970s, Joseph Pastore, a childhood friend of Bruno, was arrested for possession of stolen property in Queens County. Pastore's case was pending before the defendant. Pastore was aware of the close friendship between Anthony Bruno, who operated a restaurant near the court, and Judge Brennan. Bruno and Brennan ate at various restaurants together, attended race tracks together and vacationed together.
Pastore asked for Bruno's help, offering to pay for a favorable disposition. Bruno discussed the matter with the defendant who volunteered that something could be done for $10,000.00. Bruno, acting in what became an accustomed role of middleman— or, in the argot of the criminal world, bagman —advised Pastore that Brennan wanted $10,000 to fix the case. Pastore paid the $10,000 in cash. Bruno turned it over to defendant. On November 5, 1973, Pastore was granted a conditional discharge, followed ultimately by dismissal. Pastore expressed satisfaction with the deal.
2. NICHOLAS BOTTA AND LARRY MESSINA
Nicholas Botta was a professional gambler with a long criminal record as a bookmaker. His partner in bookmaking was Larry Messina. Botta had been an acquaintance of Anthony Bruno since the 1950s.
In the mid-1970s, Botta approached Bruno and asked him to intercede with Brennan because Messina had been arrested for gambling and was awaiting trial before Brennan. He also noted that he had himself been sentenced by Judge Brennan in 1972 to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eastway Const. Corp. v. City of New York, CV-84-0690.
...is therefore appropriate when it is the minimum that will serve to adequately deter the undesirable behavior. See U.S. v. Brennan, 629 F.Supp. 283, 307 (E.D.N.Y.1986); Nemerson, Coercive Sentencing, 64 Minn.L.Rev. 669 (1980); see also Schwarzer, Sanctions Under the New Federal Rule 11, 104 ......
-
U.S. v. Friedman, s. 107
...happened in the absence of a bribe." N.Y. Penal Law Sec. 200.10 (McKinney 1975) practice commentary; accord United States v. Brennan, 629 F.Supp. 283, 294 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 798 F.2d 581 (2d Shafran was found guilty of six predicate acts of receiving bribes: five relating to his receipt of ......
-
Brennan v. U.S., 134
...was assessed a fine of $209,000, a RICO forfeiture of $14,000 and a mandatory special assessment of $1,300. United States v. Brennan, 629 F.Supp. 283, 306-07 Brennan appealed his conviction solely on evidentiary grounds, and we affirmed. Brennan, 798 F.2d 581. Following the Supreme Court's ......
-
State v. Bergin, 13802
...receiving "even though the result sought by the bribe-giver was in fact lawful [214 Conn. 671] and proper...." United States v. Brennan, 629 F.Supp. 283, 294 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 798 F.2d 581 (2d Cir.1986); United States v. Traitz, 871 F.2d 368, 386 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110......