White Collar Criminal Defense Group

Erroneous Answers On Juror Questionnaire No Basis For New Trial For Former Newark Mayor

The Third Circuit has upheld a district court’s denial of former Newark Mayor Sharpe James’ request for a new trial on fraud charges.  United States v. James, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 2901 (3d Cir. February 12, 2013)

 Following a trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Mr. James was convicted of fraud in connection with transactions in which he steered sales of city-owned real estate to an individual with whom he had a romantic relationship.  Mr. James later filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that a juror had provided false answers to questions during the jury selection process.  The juror in question had answered “no” to questions asking him if:  1) you personally know or have any family members or close friends who know either of the defendants; 2) you or any member of your immediate family ever had any business or other dealings with the City of Newark and 3) you, any member of your immediate family or close friend have ever been involved with a political campaign in opposition to or in support of Sharpe James.  However, according to Mr. James, the juror’s mother and stepfather were employed by the City of Newark and the stepfather had contributed to Mr. James’ campaign and attended fundraisers for him.

…the court stated that Mr. James had not presented clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that the answers were dishonest, as opposed to mistaken, though honest. 

The Third Circuit stated that in order to obtain a new trial for false juror testimony, Mr. James had to show that:  1) the juror failed to answer a material question honestly during jury selection and 2) a correct response would have provided a valid basis for having the juror excluded from the trial.  With respect to the first prong, the court stated that Mr. James had not presented clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that the answers were dishonest, as opposed to mistaken, though honest.  In this regard, the court noted that:  1) simply because the juror’s stepfather made donations to Mr. James’ campaign and attended his fundraisers didn’t mean that the stepfather personally knew Mr. James; 2) the phrase “business or other dealings” didn’t necessarily include employment; 3) Mr. James had failed to establish that the juror was aware of his stepfather’s political activities and 4) even if the juror did know about his stepfather’s activities, he could have reasonably interpreted the phrase “involved with a political campaign” to involve something  more than donating money and attending fundraisers. 

The Court went on to state that even if the answers were dishonest, honest answers would not have provided a valid basis for preventing the juror from participating in the trial.  The court rejected Mr. James’ argument that the juror was more inclined to convict him to avoid reprisals against his mother and stepfather and to enhance their job security as nothing more than speculation. Moreover, the fact that the stepfather donated to Mr. James’ campaign and attended his fundraisers indicated a bias in favor of, rather than against, Mr. James.

In light of the above, the Third Circuit held that the trial court had not erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on Mr. James’ claims and in denying his motion for a new trial.

A complete copy of the opinion can be found here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/114116np.pdf

Third Circuit Sides With Government And Orders Fumo To Shoulder More Of The Restitution Burden

In the appeal of former Pennsylvania State Senator, Vincent J. Fumo, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ordered Fumo to pay a larger share of the restitution to one of his victims.  With its decision, the Court rejected the arguments raised by Fumo in his appeal and only partially granted the government’s request for relief.

This case marked Fumo’s second appeal to the Third Circuit.  In 2009, Mr. Fumo was convicted of 137 counts of fraud, tax evasion, and obstruction of justice based on allegations that he defrauded the Citizens Alliance, a non-profit which he founded, as well as the Pennsylvania State Senate and Independence Seaport Museum.  After successfully appealing his sentence from the district court in 2011, Fumo was re-sentenced in November 2011 to 55 months imprisonment and ordered to pay $3,340,839 in restitution to be apportioned among the three institutions defrauded by Fumo:  $792,802 to the Citizens Alliance; $1,413,819 to the State Senate; and $134,217 to the Independence Seaport Museum.   Both Fumo and Ruth Arnao, a former aide to Fumo and director of Citizens Alliance, were ordered to pay the Citizens Alliance restitution amount “jointly and severally.”

Although the Third Circuit refused to impose the full amount on Fumo, it agreed that Fumo and Arnao should not be saddled with equal restitution amounts due to their differing “culpability and ability to pay.” 

In this appeal, the government challenged the district’s court joint and several apportionment of the Citizens Alliance restitution between Fumo and Arnao.  Although the Third Circuit refused to impose the full amount on Fumo, it agreed that Fumo and Arnao should not be saddled with equal restitution amounts due to their differing “culpability and ability to pay.”  The Third Circuit found that the district court lacked sufficient support to conclude that Fumo and Arnao were equally culpable.  Similarly, regarding the ability to pay restitution, the Third Circuit noted a dramatic contrast between the financial resources of Fumo and Arnao.  Fumo has a net worth of over $11 million and a monthly income of $88,757.  On the other hand, Arnao has a net worth of over $1.4 million and a monthly income of $3,208.  Based on this reasoning, the Third Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions to reapportion the Citizens Alliance restitution between Fumo and Arnao.

This time around, the court rejected Fumo’s arguments.  Fumo claimed that the district court, when it increased the restitution amounts on remand, exceeded its prior mandate from the Third Circuit.  In its rejection of this argument, the court observed that the district court’s most recent sentence was consistent with its prior sentence.  The court found that it was appropriate for the district court to rely on the “sentencing package” doctrine which acknowledges that, “[b]ecause a district court’s ‘original intent may be undermined by altering one portion of the calculus,’ an appellate court when reversing one part of a defendant’s sentence ‘may vacate the entire sentence…so that, on remand, the trial court can reconfigure the sentencing plan.”

The full text of the opinion can be found here:   http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/114499np.pdf