Showing 1 - 7 of 7 results
United States v. Viktor Kozeny et al. (Frederic Bourke Jr.)
Case materials from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prosecution of Frederic Bourke Jr., United States v. Kozeny et al., No. 05-CR-518-SAS.
Argument: In July 2009, after a six-week jury trial in the Southern District of New York, Frederic Bourke Jr., co-founder of Dooney & Bourke, was found guilty of making false statements and violating FCPA. Prosecutors alleged that Bourke knew of a plot by Viktor Kozeny to bribe Azerbaijani officials to let Kozeny's investment group buy a stake in the state’s oil company in the late 1990s. Bourke was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin to a year and a day in prison. Judge Scheindlin explained her sentence by stating: “After years of supervising this case, it’s still not entirely clear to me whether Mr. Bourke is a victim or a crook or a little bit of both.” On appeal, defense attorneys for Bourke argued that the prosecutors used perjured testimony in order to obtain a conviction. After several unsuccessful appeals to the Second Circuit, Bourke began his sentence in May 2013. Viktor Kozeny, the apparent orchestrator of the scheme, has avoided extradition to the United States by remaining in the Bahamas.
More Kozeny and Bourke documents from DOJ
"Bourke's last stand?," The FCPA Blog, May 10, 2013.
"Supreme Court denies Bourke review," The FCPA Blog, April 16, 2013.
"Bourke Alleges False Testimony In New Appeal," The Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2012.
"Bourke Loses Bid For New FCPA Trial In Second Legal Setback," Bloomberg, December, 15, 2011.
"Judges Appear Unmoved by Bourke's Arguments on Appeal," Global Investigations Review, February 15, 2011.
"Jury Finds Frederic Bourke Guilty of Bribery-Related Charges," The Wall Street Journal Law Blog, July 10, 2009.
United States v. Zukerman
Order granting compassionate release: waiving exhaustion and granting compassionate release due to age, diabetes, hypertension, obesity; “When the Court sentenced Zukerman, the Court did not intend for that sentence to ‘include a great and unforeseen risk of severe illness or death’ brought on by a global pandemic.”
United States v. Scparta
Order granting compassionate release to defendant with hypertension, sleep apnea, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, who had served half his sentence despite the fact BOP had granted home detention because the required prison quarantine before release was a “dangerous set of conditions and Kafkaesque approach.”
United States v. Silver
Memorandum of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae In Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment.
Argument: Public advocacy by the United States Attorney conflicts with the proper role of a federal prosecutor. Dismissal of the indictment, polling the grand jury, or conducting an evidentiary hearing are appropriate and lawful sanctions for inappropriate prosecutorial grandstanding. The word ‘alleged’ does not talismanically erase prejudice.
United States v. Turk
Joint amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the New York Council of Defense Lawyers.
Argument: Defendants should be sentenced based only upon those losses that their conduct proximately caused. The government’s efforts to limit proximate cause analysis to securities fraud cases are unconvincing and unsupported; application of proximate cause principles will avoid unjust results that conflict with the purposes of the guidelines.
Grubbs v. Safir
Brief of Amici Curiae [New York County Lawyers’ Association, New York State Defenders Association, New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association for Public Defense, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers] in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion Seeking Enforcement of this Court’s Orders, Modified Injunctive Relief, and a Finding of Civil Contempt.
Argument: The Sixth Amendment guarantees open and uninhibited attorney-client communications. The pre-arraignment consultation between attorney and client is a critical meeting with broad consequences. The presence of cameras in attorney-client consultation booths prevents free and open communication in violation of the Sixth Amendment and the settlement order. There is no justification for the presence of cameras in attorney-client consultation booths.