Unless he's willing to accept the likelihood of conviction at trial and rely on the appellate courts, Joe Bruno needs to testify in his own defense. Otherwise:
1) Jurors will remember the unrefuted testimony of his longtime secretary, Pat Stackrow, a state employee, who said she handled all his personal business, and stole from him because he mistreated her.
2) Jurors who don't know Bruno's personal history of growing up poor, have not experienced the force of his personality and opinions and are not familiar with the recent history of the New York Republican Party, may conclude that the only reason he would be doing favors for union leaders was because they were paying him off.
3) Jurors who have not heard Bruno may not credit testimony from Len Fassler and other businessmen that he was an inspirational, motivational and visionary asset to their companies.
4) The presiding federal judge, Gary Sharpe, has made it clear that prosecutors don't need to prove a quid pro quo, violation of state ethics laws or the like, which defense lawyers seem to have focused on. The issue is whether Bruno deprived the public of his honest services, as defined under federal law. Whining that the law is vague is unlikely to sway jurors, who will more likely listen to the judge. And complaining about the judge will only work on appeal.
The key point is Stackrow's testimony. Jurors have to like Bruno to want to acquit him despite the evidence of concealed conflicts of interest. Bruno also could support testimony from prosecution witnesses (many of whom have seemed to be rooting for the defense) that when he made a suggestion they meet with a client, he did not put any pressure on them to buy the client's product -- and in many cases they did not. Top staffers for legislative leaders tend to be least pleasant and professional when fending off questions about their bosses' finances. If jurors believe that his finances brought out the worst in Bruno himself, then they will be inclined to convict.
Comments