Westchester Guardian/Judge Brieant.

Thursday, July 31, 2008

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

Brieant: A No-Nonsense Purveyor Of The Law,
With A Great Big Heart Full Of Compassion

The passing last week of District Court Judge Charles L. Brieant, a giant of a man, who wore the power of his position with great humility and thoughtfulness, was truly a profound loss to the Westchester community. I had the pleasure of meeting Judge Brieant, for the first time in chambers, in August of 2006, shortly following the 35th anniversary of his appointment by President Richard M. Nixon. He had graciously agreed to grant The Guardian an interview despite his busy schedule of court cases.

I recall how very proud he was of the gallery of nearly three dozen photographs of young law school graduates who had interned with him, that adorned the walls, many of them having achieved prominence in public and private law careers. He was quick to point out that his work was “up to date”, due mainly to his “loyal conscientious staff.” Asked how he would characterize “the single most notable difference” in
the types of actions coming before him two years ago, as opposed to when he was first appointed, he had quickly responded, “There’s a tremendous difference; it has become the Court Of Working People.” He explained, “Where we were once the Court Of High Finance
and the High Seas, we’ve become the Court Of The People.” And, that seemed to suit Judge Brieant just fine.

He was gentle, but firm; a no-nonsense purveyor of the law, with a great big heart full of compassion. However, he was no one to fool with. He was willing to give a contentious litigant the benefit of the doubt, perhaps “enough rope”, as in the $600 million suit by former Mount Vernon Mayor Ernie Davis and Company.

The Judge was never more interested in anything than he was in bringing about just and equitable solutions; help to those in need of help. And, to that end, he would congratulate and encourage lawful and ethical conduct, even from unlawful and unethical prosecutors engaged in the worst of prosecutorial misconduct, as from ADA Valerie Livingston, if only at the 11th hour in the Anthony DiSimone case.

Seconds before Brieant would gavel open what promised to be a long, protracted, and very revealing evidentiary hearing, in which literally hundreds of pages, and scores of items, all exculpatory to Anthony DiSimone, concealed in what Second Circuit Judge Calabrese had called, “The worst Brady violation” he had seen in 12 years on the bench, Livingston, trembling, declared that the DA’s Office “would not oppose Mr. DiSimone’s writ of habeus corpus” after all. The Judge, so relieved that, back to the wall or not, the State Prosecutor, who had lied to his face and to the faces of his colleagues in the Court above for some time, was now doing the right thing, that he warmly congratulated, calmed, and encouraged her.

In the Paul Cote case, Brieant demonstrated his uncommon courage and his willingness to stand up against malicious prosecution and injustice. Apparently having nothing better to do than to reprosecute, this time in Federal Court, a case against a former County Correction
Officer that a jury in State Court had had trouble buying seven years earlier, the United States Attorney’s Office, beyond the statute of limitations, would attempt, nevertheless, to try Paul Cote in the death of an inmate from the County Jail, who never recovered from the head trauma actually inflicted by a fellow Correction Of-ficer, John Mark Reimer, now a sergeant.

In pre-trial hearings, the Judge, in a not-too-private sidebar, had told Prosecutors Cynthia Dunne and Andrew Schilling, “If your case fails, I will not be sad.” Proceeding forward, despite every good reason not to, the United States Attorney’s Office achieved a conviction, even though all of the credible evidence pointed to 6’3”, 300-lb body slammer Reimer, who had literally bounced the victim/inmate’s head on
the concrete floor of Cellblock G-1. It came as no surprise to us when Brieant overturned that conviction as inconsistent with the evidence, particularly the scientific evidence, presented at trial. Apparently everyone in the courtroom, for a week of testimony, except the jurors, understood that the prosecution was bogus.

There are several fine jurists upholding, daily, the United States Constitution in the courthouse at 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains. However, I cannot honestly state that I would ever have expected what Charles L. Brieant did, in the case of Paul Cote, from anyone else.

Before parting company with thegood Judge that August morning nearly two years ago, as 9am and his busy calendar were fast approaching, I asked, “Years from now, when judicial historians reflect upon your many years of service to the citizens of the Southern District of New York, how would you prefer to be remembered?” Pausing for a moment, he responded, “Remembered that I cared and wanted to help people.” Those who knew and admired Judge Brieant know that his wish will be granted.

Leader
Of Multimillion Dollar Mortgage
And Insurance Fraud Scheme Pleads Guilty

MICHAEL J. GARCIA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that DOMINICK DEVITO
pleaded guilty in Manhattan federal court before United States District Judge BARBARA S. JONES to participating in a scheme to commit
mortgage fraud and insurance fraud and to obstruct justice.

According to the Indictment, other documents filed in the case, and statements made during the guilty plea proceeding: From January 2002 through November 2004, DEVITO was the leader of a fraudulent real estate investment scheme, which had as its primary objective the purchase of multimilliondollar residential properties in various communities in Westchester County - - including Purchase, New York -- with
loans obtained through the submission of false and misleading information to banks and other lenders. Many of the loans were for amounts equal to or more than one hundred percent of the property’s actual sale price, so that DEVITO and his co-conspirators did not have to risk any of their own money in the transaction. DEVITO identified properties for sale, orchestrated the purchase of the properties, and performed construction work at the properties.

In furtherance of the fraud, DEVITO submitted to various federally-insured banks loan applications, contracts of sale, deeds, real estate transfer documents, title reports, and other documents which contained materially false or misleading information about the income,
assets, existing debt and creditworthiness of the borrower, the chain of title to the property, and the sale price of the home.

DEVITO and his coconspirators also indicated the borrower’s intent to reside in the property as a primary residence, when the properties were typically purchased for investment purposes. DEVITO ultimately “cashed out” on certain properties by taking additional private loans against the already fraudulently-inflated sale price of the properties. The proceeds of these loans, which were never repaid in full, were
deposited in a bank account used for DEVITO’s benefit.

As a result of DEVITO’s scheme to defraud, DEVITO obtained millions of dollars in loan proceeds, and was able to control certain properties that he otherwise would not have been able to purchase and finance. The banks, on the other hand, lost millions of dollars
when DEVITO and his co-conspirators defaulted on mortgage payments and caused several of the properties to go into foreclosure.

In addition, from January 2003 through February 2005, DEVITO engaged in a scheme to defraud insurance companies by submitting false
and misleading insurance claims and supporting documents for water damage caused by broken pipes at several of the homes he and his co-conspirators had purchased as part of the mortgage fraud scheme.

Also, DEVITO obstructed justice in connection with his sentencing in 2003 in Manhattan federal court after he was convicted of racketeering
and mortgage fraud in an earlier case. Specifically, DEVITO submitted false and misleading information regarding the value of his assets and his personal net worth following his sale of a property located in Purchase, New York.

DEVITO, 44, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and one
count of obstruction of justice. He faces a total maximum prison term of sixty years and mandatory restitution to the victims of his crimes. DEVITO also agreed to forfeit a total of $1.4 million. He is scheduled to be sentenced by United States District Court Judge BARBARA S. JONES on October 24, 2008.

Of the three other defendants charged in the case, one has pleaded guilty and the other two await trial, which is scheduled for September 2, 2008. As to the defendants awaiting trial, the charges are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. Mr. GARCIA praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the investigation of this case. Assistant United States Attorneys KATHERINE R.GOLDSTEIN and JONATHAN B. NEW are in charge of the prosecution.

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

Phil Amicone & Company Discover The First Amendment
United States District Court, White Plains
Judge Charles L. Brieant Presiding

Friday, September 21 Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone and his regime were jarred from their delusions with respect to the First Amendment to the Constitution, specifically its crystal-clear language with regard to Freedom Of The Press. Apparently Mr. Amicone and his cohorts in city government had been laboring under the false
impression that in this post-9/11 atmosphere of warrantless wiretaps, searches, and seizures, our fundamental Constitutional protections had been watered down to where government, including Yonkers’ Mayor and City Government, could, if they didn’t like what a newspaper was saying about them, simply confiscate and destroy that newspaper’s distribution boxes, and arrest those employed in its distribution.

The hearing before Judge Charles L Brieant, opened with a statement from Attorney for The Westchester Guardian, and numerous aggrieved Yonkers readers of the newspaper, Jonathan Lovett, who declared, “Your Honor, this case is one of nine cases we have filed against the City of Yonkers’ orchestrated theft and destruction of our newsracks. They believe they can suppress a news publication under Section 100-35 of
the City Ordinance. We challenge that provision.”

Attorney Kevin Plunkett, representing Amicone and the City Administration, broke in at that point, citing the “MTA Decision by Judge Knapp, in 1969, involving The Westchester/Rockland Newspapers.”

Mr. Lovett countered, “We are simply asking for a Preliminary Injunction, Your Honor. This is not just a newsrack issue. It is content-based.”

Mr. Plunkett came back with, “The City of Yonkers amended the ordinance to comply, under Section 33 of the
Code.”

Judge Brieant, turning to Plunkett, then declared, “We have a lawsuit here; that’s the problem. I don’t see how you cannot tolerate the racks. Other papers have racks.”

Mr. Plunkett then read the applicable section of the City Ordinance, making pointed references to locations from which Westchester Guardian newsracks had been removed, attempting to justify those removals under the ordinance.

Following that recitation, Brieant asked, “Are there any other newsracks of other publications also there?” He went on, “I have a very strong supportive view as regards First Amendment Rights. I am going to set a schedule for pretrial discovery.”

Attorney Plunkett broke in with, “This paper has created issues.”

Judge Briant now announced in a firm tone, “When I see an opportunity to have a First Amendment issue, that’s what I’m here for.” At the Judge’s urging Mr. Plunkett and his associate retired into conference with Mr. Lovett in an attempt to draw up a stipulation satisfactory to both sides. Following 25 minutes of closed-door negotiation,
Lovett emerged with a proposal from the City that would have banned distribution of The Guardian on the streets of Yonkers, totally unacceptable to the publisher.

Brieant, upon learning of their failure to reach an accord, sent the attorneys back into conference. However they soon re-emerged, Mr. Lovett announcing, “We were not able to reach any agreement, Your Honor.” Mr. Plunkett, quickly countered with, “We came close. We were trying to resolve matters going forward as Your Honor suggested.”

The Judge then advised the attorneys, “I’d rather call you in for a hearing. Go back in there, (referring to the conference room adjacent to the courtroom,) and I’ll join you as soon as I can.” The Judge had been handling numerous other calendar items while Plunkett and Lovett had been in conference for a total of more than half an hour. Upon clearing out all of the other items Brieant left the bench and entered the conference room, remaining for nearly 15 minutes, in an attempt to mediate a temporary agreement.

Returning to the courtroom with the attorneys, Brieant permitted each side to make a statement for the record, whereupon the Judge added, “The Court has reviewed this matter.

The Court orders a Temporary Restraining Order. The Plaintiff may install racks anywhere in the City. This is temporary relief only with the public’s interest in mind. The Plaintiff’s publication will enjoy the same privileges as any other newspaper at City Hall. The City Administration will advise employees that they are not to destroy any of the newsracks. Distribution on sidewalks is to be allowed but not in traffic on the street.” Judge Brieant set November 12th at 9:00am as the trial date.

Analysis:

Judge Charles L. Brieant, appointed to the Federal Bench by former Republican President Richard M. Nixon thirty-six years ago, left no doubt in anyone’s mind concerning the seriousness with which he continues to view violations of First Amendment Rights. Surely, Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone, and his advisors, must now realize what a grievous miscalculation they made in their oppressive and reckless campaign to prevent truthful, if unfavorable, information regarding the Mayor and the City Administration from reaching the People of Yonkers.
Content-based First Amendment violations are historically regarded as most egregious and intolerable.

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

Federal Prosecutor Continues Misuse Of Taxpayers’ Money Maliciously Prosecuting Paul Cote, Victim Of Pirro Lie

Two weeks ago, April 26, 2007, Assistant United States Attorney Cynthia K. Dunne, headquartered at the Federal Courthouse, White Plains, filed a Notice Of Appeal with the United States District Court Judge Charles L Brieant, at the same location, in the case of United States of America v. Paul M. Cote.

Readers will recall that on April 23rd Federal District Court Judge Brieant had rendered a decision overturning the conviction of former County Correction Officer Paul Cote by a jury after trial, on September 20, 2006, and
their finding that he had violated 18 U.S.C. Section 242 depriving Zoran Teodorovic of his right to liberty, without due process of law, while acting under color of law.

Mr. Cote, who had been tried and convicted of Assault, Second Degree, in state court, in July 2001, and served three months in jail, had granted the United States Attorney’s Office a waiver of the five-year Statute of Limitations, whereupon that office proceeded to once again try him under the same facts as he had previously been exposed under, clearly in every Constitutional sense, Double Jeopardy.

What was most significant about Judge Brieant’s vacating of Cote’s conviction was the fact that it was not based upon some procedural technicality nor flaw, but rather upon the failure of the jury’s verdict to comport with the overwhelming weight of evidence presented at trial. No intelligent observer attending the case put on by Assistant United States Attorneys Cynthia Dunne and Andrew Schilling against Mr. Cote could, in good conscience,
ever conclude that it was his actions that ultimately, some fourteen months later, resulted in the death of inmate Teodorovic. Despite the confabulated fiction created by DA Jeanine Pirro some seven years earlier, the product of her ‘deal’ with the correction officer actually responsible, John Mark Reimer, the conspicuous truth remained that it was Reimer, six foot two inches tall, and 285 pounds, whose ‘bearhug’ and slamming of Teodorovic
to the concrete floor of G-1 Cellblock of the County Jail, with such force that the inmate’s head literally bounced, was the single most identifi-able cause of his ultimate premature death some fourteen months later.

We must now ask the United States Attorney’s Office, and more specifi-cally Attorney Cynthia Dunne, given what your office and you individually now know, and must publicly acknowledge, in light of the Anthony
DiSimone case, and all of the revelations that continue to flow from it, that, in fact, form the basis of your Office’s ongoing investigation of, and case against, former DA Jeanine Pirro, how can you ethically, morally, and in
good conscience, continue to pursue the malicious prosecution and harassment of Paul Cote based upon confabulated and irrational testimony schemed up between Officer Reimer, Jeanine Pirro and her assistant
Robert Neary?

You can not have it both ways, after all. You can not, on the one hand, prosecute her for her acts of blatant prosecutorial misconduct, some of which intimately involving your Office and the FBI, while at the same moment relying upon her witness’ suborned perjured testimony as though it was the Synoptic Gospel. Neither can you
continue to torment this Defendant and his loved ones without significantly losing face at a time when Michael J. Garcia, and the Administration in Washington are struggling to restore public confidence in the integrity of the Justice Department, and the judiciary, both state and federal, merely because the Government has unlimited financial resources, and can literally bankrupt and exhaust any defendant irrespective of his innocence and his determination to receive due process.

You must do the honorable thing now, not after you have been compelled to totally discredit and malign the very person whose lies you now use to torture and desecrate an innocent man. You must withdraw your appeal of Judge Brieant’s decision, and acknowledge the wisdom and truthfulness, and yes, the humanity, of it. In so doing you will fulfill your sworn duty as a federal prosecutor, not only to protect the innocent while prosecuting the guilty, but also to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America.

Judge Charles L. Brieant Overturns Conviction of Former Correction Officer Paul Cote.

A Great Judge Delivers, A Courageous Decision.

On Tuesday, April 3rd, United States Federal District Court Judge Charles L. Brieant affirmed what seasoned court watchers have known about him for many years as he, once again, summoned the courage and the wisdom with which he has graced the Westchester Community for some thirty-six years, handingdown a decision the like of which is all too seldom seen.

Paul Cote, former Westchester County Correction Officer, convicted by a jury on September 20, 2006, in Brieant’s Court, on a single-count indictment, charging violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 242, in the deprivation of Zoran Teodorovic’s right to liberty without due process of law, while acting under color of law. Mr. Cote, who had been tried and convicted of Assault in the Second Degree, in Westchester County Court, in July 2001, serving three months in jail, having granted the United States Attorney’s Office a waiver of the applicable five-year Statute of Limitations, had been once again tried for the same transaction, exposed in every Constitutional sense to Double Jeopardy, and convicted.

Cote’s prior trial, and conviction were hopefully, truly unknown to the federal jury. Nevertheless, he was being tried by the federal government based on the same set of facts, six years after the occurrence, and was found guilty. The incident, which took place at the Westchester County Jail October 10, 2000, involved a homeless, belligerent inmate, Zoran Teodorovic, a fellow correction officer, now Corrections Sergeant John Mark Reimer, and Cote. Despite the fact that the Defendant’s involvement did not occur until after Officer Reimer, responding to a punch in the face, had bear-hugged the inmate, swinging him through a six-foot radius arc, and slamming his head to the concrete floor of G-1 cellblock, causing massive cerebral injury, charges resulting from Teodorovic’s ultimate death, some 14 months later, were lodged against Cote, using Reimer as the chief Prosecution witness.

Charged with “striking, kicking, and stomping” the inmate, Cote had rushed to the aid of fellow officer Reimer, as per approved protocols and regulations. Reimer, however, had gone to DA Jeanine Pirro first, and, as so often has been the case, cut his deal with the Devil. At oral arguments pursuant to Mr. Cote’s appeal of his conviction under Federal Rules 29(c) and 33, the issue of the relationship between federal prosecutors, and the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, specifically former ADA Robert Neary, was brought up by Defense Counsel Bennett Epstein, drawing a response from Assistant United States Attorney Cynthia Dunne that her office merely monitored the State proceedings. Epstein strongly suggested that there had been significant cooperation and choreography between the two Offices.

Under Rule 29, federal judges are granted the judge-ordered “ judgment of acquittal” replacing the former “directed verdict,” previously returned by the jury under directions from the judge. Coming directly from the judge, in this case Judge Charles L. Brieant, a finding for the Defendant under Rule 29 is an affirmative determi-nation that the Prosecution had failed to carry its burden of proof.

Rule 33, on the other hand, gives a trial court considerable discretion to set aside a jury verdict, that it deems a “miscarriage of justice,” and order a new trial. The language of the federal rule shows sensitivity to the historic role of the jury, speaking of the need by judges to avoid “wholly usurping” the jury’s responsibility of resolving conflicting evidence, and assessing the credibility of witnesses. The rule speaks of the need to find “exceptional circumstances” before a judge may “intrude upon the jury function.”

Having presided over the two-week trial, Judge Brieant concluded: “ The verdict was not fairly based on the evidence presented at trial, and was not in proper conformity with the Indictment. The Court also concludes, based on its direct observation of the entire trial, that the interests of Justice were not served by the verdict, and that if on appeal Defendant is deemed not entitled to a judgment of acquittal, in contrast to this Court’s view, then he is at least entitled to a new trial.”

Judge Brieant further ruled: “The motion for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(c) is granted. The motion for a new trial under Rule 33 is conditionally granted if the judgment of acquittal is reversed. The judgment is stayed pending Appellate finality.”

“Double Jeopardy Trick” Convicts Former Correction Officer

SPECIAL COURT REPORT ANALYSIS

By Richard Blassberg

The conviction Wednesday September 20th, in United States District Court, White Plains, of Paul Cote, former Westchester County Correction Officer, charged with violating the Civil Rights of deceased former homeless,
inmate Zoran Teodorovic, reemphasizes the need for Congress to take a long, hard look at the Unconstitutional double jeopardy such federal prosecutions actually represent. Cote was charged with denying Teodorovic his liberty without the benefit of Due Process under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242. Unbeknownst to the jurors who returned that conviction, Cote had been tried and convicted of Assault in the Second Degree, in July of 2001, in Westchester County Court, serving three months in jail.

The circumstances surrounding the bringing of federal charges, based on the same set of facts, six years after the occurrence, in violation of the Statute of Limitations, serves to further spotlight the injustice of Federal Prosecutors, with far more appropriate issues to pursue, “taking a second bite,” as it were, from individuals that they feel were not sufficiently punished by the State. It’s time our Federal Court System, and specifically, our United States Attorneys get the Hell out of politics, and start that what our adversarial judicial system is supposed to be about, a pursuit of the truth.

What we witnessed in this case was nothing short of a wholesale mockery of Justice. Assistant United States Attorneys Cynthia Dunne and Andrew Schilling were fully aware of the fact that their chief witness Correction Officer, Sergeant John Mark Reimer was the individual whose actions were principally responsible for the irreversible severe brain and skull damage to Teodorovic. In response to being punched in his face by the inmate Reimer, all six foot two inches, 285 pounds of him, threw the assailant into a bear hug crashing him to the concrete cellblock floor, head first.

Reimer had admitted under crossexamination that he had met six times, for a total of seventeen hours, with
Prosecutors Dunne and Schilling in the weeks prior to trial, for the purpose of repeatedly reviewing his prior testimony in the state trial five years earlier, as well as what he would now testify to. That scenario apparently didn’t enlighten this jury. Reimer had been “cute” under cross-examination trying desperately to withhold nformation exculpatory to Defendant Cote. He was so recalcitrant, he was reprimanded by Judge Brieant, whose disdain for the entire case was quite evident.

In pre-trial hearings, many weeks before the trial, Brieant had plainly expressed his belief under a variety of
theories, that, in fact, the Government’s prosecution constituted a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution.

He had spoken to the issue for several minutes, at one point citing Petite v. United States. The case brought against Paul Cote, for two weeks in United States District Court, was merely an attempt to draw more punishment, more time, from someone; in this instance, the man who had been framed in the state trial five years earlier, by a confabulation of District Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s creation. Cote had been tried by Assistant DA Robert Neary, a prosecutor with no compunction about knowingly prosecuting and convicting innocent police officers and other law enforcement personnel. He had done precisely that with former New Rochelle Police Officer Matthew Mc Carrick, falsely charged with Robbery and Assault a few years earlier. Despite his conviction for Second Degree Assault, his serving of three months jail time, his loss of a twelve years career and pension benefits, the United States Attorney’s Office was not satisfied that Paul Cote had suffered enough punishment, given the fact that inmate Teodorovic ultimately died fourteen months after the incident.

It is frightening to witness a jury of seven men and five women, each of whom have obviously left their common sense at home. It is as though they cannot accept the ugly truth that for the Prosecutors it is simply a contest to be won, with no regard for establishing the truth, no desire to protect the innocent, and every desire to crawl into bed with the most deceitful parties to the crime, so long as they tell a jury exactly what the Prosecution wants them to hear, in exchange for immunity, or a lighter sentence.

It is the repeated practice of making deals with the Devil, so often engaged in by state and federal prosecutors these days that diminishes the dignity and relevance of the criminal court system and makes a mockery of what we teach our youth. How can one be expected to view our courts with respect when confronted with unreliable, better yet, perjured testimony, and the subornation of perjury, by prosecutors such as Jeanine Pirro, and Cynthia Dunne and Andrew Schilling?

One would have hoped, particularly following the jury charge and instructions from Judge Brieant, that the jurors would have paid suffi-cient attention to the fact that the so-called eyewitnesses to the incident consisted of Reimer, a most interested and culpable party, and three “jailhouse snitches”: a drug dealer, an attempted child abuser, and an attempted murderer, each of whose testimony contradicted the other two.

As the trial progressed it certainly should have occurred to those same jurors that if the Defendant was actually
guilty of all of the punches and kicks alleged by the Prosecution and related by Officer Reimer, why was Reimer, who admitted that he was, in fact, on top of the inmate, and restraining him, unable, over the course of several seconds, to prevent the Defendant from doing what he was accusing him of having done? Furthermore, it should have occurred to the same jurors that it was Reimer, and not Cote, who had just been punched in the face, so hard that he had “bitten his cheek,” and clearly was responding reflexively when he slammed Teodorovic’s head on the concrete floor. In cross-examination Reimer had been compelled to acknowledge that the inmate’s head had actuallybounced from the force of impact.

It is clear that the concept of “Reasonable Doubt,” as repeatedly explained by Defense Counsel as well as
Judge Brieant at numerous points in the trial, was totally lost on this jury. Given the admissions of Reimer, both in direct, as well as crossexamination, no intelligent individual could, in good conscience, assert that there was no room for reasonable doubt. One can never secondguess what is going through the minds of jurors. I’ve known some who totally abandoned overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and convicted defendants of murder just not to have to undergo sequestration.

Given the ‘peril of the jury’, no defendant should ever be subjected to Double Jeopardy. A remedy, however, exists for the actions of this jury. Immediately following the announcement of the verdict, upon discharge of the jury, Defense counsel Bennett Epstein made an oral motion to the Court asking that the verdict be vacated as “against the weight of evidence.”

Judge Brieant received the motion, reserving decision and requesting a formal written application. That motion and other applications, likely forthcoming from both Defense and Prosecution, were set down for hearing on December 5, 2006.