United States v. Salahuddin
| Decision Date | 19 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | Criminal No. 10-104 (FLW) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. RONALD SALAHUDDIN and SONNIE L. COOPER Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
*NOT FOR PUBLICATION
On October 14, 2011, Defendants Ronald Salahuddin ("Salahuddin") and Sonnie Cooper ("Cooper") (collectively "Defendants") were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce by extortion under color of official right, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (the "Hobbs Act"). Defendants were acquitted on counts of attempting to violate the Hobbs Act and violating the Hobbs Acts. Now Defendants each move the Court to enter an acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 because of an insufficiency of the evidence or to vacate the conviction and order a new trial under Rule 33 because the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. Additionally, Salahuddin argues his conviction should be vacated because (1) of alleged Brady violations by the Government; (2) the Court improperly instructed the jury, and (3) his intent was only to facilitate and promote minority hiring, not to violate the law. And Cooper argues his conviction should be vacated because (1) the Government engaged in shocking, outrageous, and intolerable behavior and (2) the Government selectively prosecuted Cooper and Salahuddin because they were African American, while not prosecuting otherpotential Caucasian targets. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions are denied.
The following is a brief summary of the Government's allegations. Salahuddin was formerly Deputy Mayor of the City of Newark in charge of Public Enforcement and Cooper owned a demolition business in Newark. The conspiracy between the two involved a circular plan whereby Salahuddin would direct government contracts to a third party, Nicholas Mazzocchi ("Mazzocchi"), if Mazzocchi would then subcontract work to Cooper. This would then benefit Salahuddin, who allegedly had a silent financial interest in Cooper's business, S. Cooper Brothers Trucking.
The Government claimed that between July 2006 and December 2007, Salahuddin and Cooper conspired to use Salahuddin's official position to steer demolition contracts from the City of Newark and the New Jersey Devils to Mazzocchi, who owned and operated Mazzocchi Wrecking, Inc, a demolition company. If Salahuddin could award contracts to Mazzocchi—or influence other Newark officials to award contracts to Mazzocchi—then Mazzocchi was expected to subcontract work to Cooper. Cooper would profit directly through the work and Salahuddin indirectly through his hidden financial relationship with Cooper. Further, Salahuddin asked Mazzocchi to contribute to certain political causes supported by the Newark Mayor's Office and other Newark public officials to make it appear that Mazzocchi was a "friend of the administration" in order to facilitate awarding the contracts to Mazzocchi.
The Government argued that the idea for the conspiracy originated when Salahuddin met with Joseph Parlavecchio ("Parlavecchio"), who provided consulting work to several Newark demolition companies, including Mazzocchi's. Indeed, Salahuddin and Cooper were introduced to Mazzocchi through Parlavecchio. Unbeknownst to the other three, Mazzocchi wascooperating with the F.B.I. and was recording his conversations with Salahuddin, Cooper, and Parlavecchio.1 On July 29, 2006, and August 5, 2006, Parlavecchio met with Mazzocchi to discuss that he had met with Salahuddin. Parlavecchio told Mazzocchi that if Mazzocchi wanted more demolition work in Newark—where he had not received a contract in over five years—he would have to subcontract work to Cooper. Mazzocchi then met in person with Cooper individually, met with Cooper and Salahuddin together, and spoke with both on the telephone numerous times over the next year; Mazzocchi discussed obtaining demolition contracts from the City of Newark as well as demolition work in connection with the New Jersey Devils Stadium that was being built in Newark. All three discussed how Cooper should be given some work if Mazzocchi received contracts from Newark.
The Government also sought to prove that Salahuddin and Cooper shared a significant financial relationship and that therefore Salahuddin would profit if Mazzocchi were to work with Cooper. Cooper was a Newark-based businessman who owned several concerns, including a deli, a liquor store, and S. Cooper Brothers Trucking. In 2004, Salahuddin loaned Cooper money for Cooper to secure a bond so that he could be eligible for a garbage contract from the City of Irvington. Salahuddin served as a general indemnitor for the bond. In addition, Salahuddin provided Cooper with money for litigation and business expenses. Cooper described Salahuddin as a "silent partner" in his trucking business and Salahuddin explained to Mazzocchi that he and Cooper "did business together" and also referred to Cooper as his partner.
In addition to providing Cooper with subcontracts related to Newark demolition projects, Salahuddin asked Mazzocchi to contribute to several causes in order to enable Salahuddin to direct work to Mazzocchi. Despite Salahuddin's contrary suggestions to Mazzocchi, Salahuddinhad no actual authority to award demolition contracts. Later in the course of the conspiracy, Salahuddin suggested that Mazzocchi make these contributions as a means to help Salahuddin influence the officials who did have power over the contracts. These contributions included a $5,000 donation by Mazzocchi to Newark Now, a non-profit organization associated with Newark Mayor, Cory Booker; $3,000 to purchase a table at a fundraiser for Mayor Booker; and $4,000 in donations by Mazzocchi for Empower Newark, a Newark-based political action committee.
Based on these dealings and the conversations recorded by Mazzocchi, the Government brought charges against Salahuddin and Cooper. On February 18, 2010, a grand jury in Trenton, New Jersey, returned a five-count indictment against Defendants. Count One charged Defendants with a conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce by extortion under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), also known as the Hobbs Act. Count Two charged that Defendants knowingly and willfully attempted to obstruct interstate commerce by extortion under the color of official right, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Counts Three through Five charged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, in that Defendants knowingly and corruptly solicited, demanded, accepted, and agreed to accept as bribes things of value to influence and reward Salahuddin's effort to steer Newark demolition contracts from the City of Newark to Mazzocchi and Cooper. In particular, Count Three related to contracts Cooper received, Count Four related to contributions Mazzocchi made at Salahuddin's behest, and Count Five related to a $5,000 payment that Cooper made to Salahuddin contemporaneously with being paid by Mazzocchi. Salahuddin was charged in all counts of the indictment; Cooper was charged in all Counts, except Count Four. Trial began on September 7, 2011, during which the Government introduced a number of recordedconversations, significant documentary evidence, and testimony from Mazzocchi as well as several Newark officials. After the Government rested, Salahuddin called several character witnesses and also testified himself. Cooper did not call any witnesses, but did examine Salahuddin. Closing arguments lasted several days. On October 14, 2011, the jury returned its verdict and Defendants were convicted only on Count One, that they conspired to violate the Hobbs Act.
Defendants now move the Court to enter an acquittal or to vacate the conviction and order a new trial.
According to Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, "[a]fter the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction." A court may reserve its decision on a Rule 29 motion until after the jury has reached a verdict. If so, the court still must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved. United States v. Brodie, 403 F.3d 123, 133 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Claxton, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13969, *11-12 (3d Cir. July 9, 2012). Hence, this Court must decide Defendants' Rule 29 motions based on the evidence at the end of the Government's case in chief, see Brodie, 403 F.3d at 134, and their renewed motion at the end of the trial based on all evidence entered.
A Rule 29 motion requires a court to determine whether the government's evidence is sufficient, or stated another way, whether the record contains "substantial evidence from which any rational trier-of-fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Lore, 430F.3d 190, 203-04 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Smith, 294 F.3d 473, 476 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. Wolfe, 245 F.3d 257, 261 (3d Cir. 2001). In weighing the evidence presented, the court must "review the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution," resolving all credibility determinations in the government's favor. Wolfe, 245 F.3d at 261; see also United States v. Leon, 739 F.2d 885, 891 (3d Cir. 1984) ().
Indeed, "[c]ourts must be ever vigilant in the context of Fed. R. Crim. P 29 not to usurp the role of the jury by weighing credibility and assigning weight to the evidence, or by substituting its judgment for that of the jury." Brodie, 403 F.3d at 133 (citations omitted); United States v. Carmichael, 269 F. Supp. 2d 588, 595 (D.N.J. 2003) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial