Managing Competing Priorities In Witness Preparation - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

Recently, the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology drew criticism for their congressional testimony related to antisemitism on college campuses. Penn President Liz Magill ultimately resigned from her position because of the criticism.[1] Harvard President Claudine Gay also resigned on Jan. 2, due in part to the backlash her comments received. In the weeks leading up to her resignation, Gay apologized for her remarks and stated, "I got caught up in what had become at that point, an extended, combative exchange about policies and procedures. … I failed to convey what is my truth."[2] While the criticism of the presidents' testimony is understandable, what is also understandable is that there were likely competing priorities in the process leading up to the testimony. In other words, there was probably tension between what the university presidents probably knew they should have said — i.e., "Yes, calling for the genocide of Jews violates their school's code of conduct," and what they were likely told to say, i.e., in the words of Magill, "it is ... context-dependent." Such competing priorities are commonly seen in preparing for deposition testimony, as well. This article takes a closer look at these competing priorities, and discusses ways to remedy them. Discrepancy in Goals Between Attorneys and Witnesses There is often a divide between what attorneys want and what witnesses want out of the deposition process. Attorneys want their witnesses to perform well. In other words, they do not want them to do or say anything that may harm the case. They want them to stand firm, spot any traps and react appropriately. If they are working with advanced witnesses responsible for carrying strategy forward — e.g., corporate representatives — they probably also want to make sure the witnesses clearly and succinctly get across the case themes. For most witnesses, their goal is to get out of the deposition in one piece. They do not want to mess up. They want to make everyone happy. But, most of all, they want it over with. The deposition experience is, at best, stressful, and, at worst, an overwhelming tidal wave of emotion. Either way, witnesses — like all humans — seek safety and security.[3] This typically shows up in a fight, flight or freeze response. Individuals gravitate toward built-in responses to external stimuli, like an uncontrollable emotional reaction, i.e., hyperarousal; shutting down and doing whatever is necessary to get it to stop, i.e., hypoarousal; or becoming numb. This numbness is a dissociative response: Individuals no longer have the sense they have any stake in the game. Things cease to matter. Anything goes. They have given up. Witnesses often report that their stress level increases anytime they receive an email or phone call from their attorneys. Without realizing it, some attorneys are retraumatizing their witnesses with each contact because it reminds the witnesses — especially those who have been involved in a catastrophic injury — of one of the worst days of their lives. It also reminds them that no matter how hard they may try to avoid the litigation process, it is unlikely to go away until they sit down and answer accusatory questions from opposing counsel. This remains the case no matter which side of litigation you are on. Plaintiffs and family members have unique stressors when testifying, as do named defendants, corporate representatives and company owners. How can attorneys resolve this tension? Can anything be done to incorporate both sets of priorities? We believe things can be done to minimize this tension, if not totally resolve it. But first, we need to backtrack and consider how the inherent lack of autonomy often projected onto witnesses inhibits the "good performance" everyone is seeking. Tackling Some Assumptions Why is there an assumption that testifying witnesses will happily oblige the legal team's view of the case and perform as directed without question? Why are some attorneys and clients willing to dismiss, or fail to consider, witnesses' perspectives, thoughts, feelings and reactions to the situation the witnesses find themselves in? Many witnesses decidedly do not want to be involved in litigation — many, in fact, would do almost anything to not be involved. Many are doing what they can to grit their teeth and make it through the process unscathed — attempt to perform well, meet the team's expectations and avoid embarrassing themselves. Attorneys tell witnesses to listen carefully, pay close attention to the question, take their time, do not speculate and stay calm. That is a simplistic approach to a situation that is more likely to be full of emotional land mines, manipulative questions and confusing tactics. Most of us do not spend hours in the ticking time bomb-esque feeling of a deposition or trial testimony. Attorneys with years of experience navigating the legal system are conditioned to accept the emotionality inherent in it — the ups and downs of litigation are normalized, expected and prepared for. But what about for those unfamiliar with such a situation? There is a painful fact about human behavior: You can tell someone to do something differently multiple times; however, that does not necessarily mean they have the capacity to change on command. Humans are not that simple. These things require a little more understanding and a little more work. Understanding how to empower behavior change means understanding that it begins with putting the witness at the center of the preparation process. This is what ensures good testimony. Resolving the Tension Between Priorities and Maximizing Preparation One of the first ways to resolve the tension created by competing priorities in deposition preparation is for the attorney to shift their mindset. It is a different thing to enter the preparation room with a prebuilt idea that witnesses are there to perform for the team, versus entering the room genuinely curious about witnesses' perspectives, fears and abilities. This involves asking open-ended questions and building rapport with the witness — an individual who is enduring something difficult. This also involves acknowledging that the situation can be tough, and not rushing to convince the witness otherwise. Taking the time to discuss these concerns and build rapport with witnesses is something that attorneys often overlook. Sometimes, attorneys will try to bypass the rapport-building process with witnesses and get straight to the mock questions. Some of them view building rapport and allowing witnesses to seemingly dump their emotions as a waste of precious time that could be better spent practicing answering questions and honing responses that support the case narrative. While the mock cross-examination process is vital to preparing witnesses for testimony, this process is useless if witnesses are not engaged, feel unheard or are carrying emotional baggage. Interestingly, some witnesses want to bypass the extensive training it takes to be a "good" witness and do not want to discuss how the litigation is affecting them. When attorneys oblige the witness's request to get on to the mock cross-examination questions, there is almost always a point during the preparation process in which the witness's walls begin coming down, and their underlying feelings emerge — it just had to happen on their time. Sometimes it is a document that elicits this reaction; sometimes it is a line of questioning during the mock cross-examination. Regardless of when it happens, that is the moment when the focus must shift away from the mock cross-examination questions and shift to addressing these underlying emotions and concerns. The focus on a positive outcome can cloud the team's perspective. If witnesses sense the litigation team is prioritizing a good result and concentrating on "doing well" above all, it can be difficult for the witness to acknowledge any fears around their ability to meet those expectations. The team needs to establish a climate of psychological safety, where it is clear there will not be negative consequences for acknowledging reality — even an uncomfortable, less-than-perfect one. Attorneys should meet witnesses where they are. Despite your structured witness preparation processes, witness preparation should still look different every time. It must ultimately be driven by, and focused on, the unique needs of whoever is in front of you. Attorneys and clients should also consider letting witnesses in and showing them what is going on behind the scenes in the litigation. For example, how will their "yes" response to one question be used against them later in the deposition? What is the purpose of opposing counsel showing witnesses a specific document — i.e., how does this document tie into opposing counsel's case narrative? What are the bad facts that opposing counsel will point out to try and elicit a defensive or emotional reaction from the witnesses? While we respect the need to be cautious about disclosure and discovery issues when letting witnesses know more about the case, giving them a sense of ownership over what is happening is essential. They are the ones navigating a hard situation. Yet, the litigation team sometimes fails to offer padding for the toughness. Somewhat counterintuitively, putting everything on the table helps dissipate the tension and encourage witness cohesion with the litigation strategy. Trust among the litigation team, including the witness, is essential. The team needs to hear — bad or good — what witnesses know, remember and think about critical elements of the case. Attorneys should not want to be surprised during testimony. There are horror stories recounting how attorneys have learned of witnesses' criminal histories during the deposition. This most likely occurred because the attorneys did not take the time to learn more about their witnesses before deposition. Their preparation likely focused more on the case facts, and not on a holistic view of the person who was testifying. Incorporating Behavioral Science in Litigation It is also worth noting that motivation goes a long way in making it easier for people to do hard things. Research suggests that when people are in social contexts that support their unique intrinsic or extrinsic motivations for engaging in a task, and when people are given autonomy — when they are allowed to have needs of their own within that task — they have higher levels of motivation, and ultimately perform better.[4] Witnesses are no different. Some witnesses are motivated by a team's support and understanding of their unique life circumstances. As an example, this could mean the team meets at an ideal location for the witnesses, but out of the way for the litigation team. It could also mean the team takes the time to bring witnesses to the courtroom before trial testimony to help normalize an unfamiliar environment. Perhaps preparation involves a mental health component, where witnesses get an opportunity to express their anxieties and receive support for their present situation. All these legal team concessions can help motivate witnesses to endure the extensive deposition or trial testimony preparation process. Conclusion Witness preparation involves a power differential: The witness is subordinate to rules obliging them to speak truthfully, which requires significant vulnerability on their part. The litigation team, meanwhile, has no such mandate. Their vulnerabilities are not exposed in the same manner. Ultimately, witnesses are the only ones executing what is being prepared for. They are the performers, asked to spend time in a hard situation from which they may receive little to no benefit. Litigation teams that have empathy with this situation will facilitate better connections, establish greater trust and create conditions where witnesses are comfortable sharing opinions and recollections that help the discovery and strategic process. Ava Hernández is a litigation consultant and Steve Wood, Ph.D., is a senior litigation consultant at Courtroom Sciences Inc. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. [1] Arkin, D. (2023, December 9). University of Pennsylvania president steps down amid criticism of antisemitism testimony. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/university-pennsylvania-president-steps-criticism-antisemitism-testimo-rcna128712. [2] Arkin, D. (2023, December 12). Harvard president to stay amid outcry over antisemitism testimony. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/harvard-president-claudine-gay-staying-rcna129178. [3] Mcleod, S. (2023, November 24). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html. [4] Edward L. Deci & Richard M. Ryan (2000) The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.

Mass. Atty Gets 2 Years For 'Corruptly' Pushing Pot Bribe Plot - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

A former Massachusetts attorney "violated his oath corruptly" by bribing a police chief with payments to his brother to win a local marijuana license for a client, a federal judge said Wednesday as he handed down a two-year prison term. During a hearing in Boston, U.S. District Judge William G. Young also ordered Sean O'Donovan to pay a $150,000 fine and serve three years of supervised release, during which time he is barred from attempting to regain his ability to practice law. A jury convicted O'Donovan in October of a fraud and bribery scheme designed to secure one of three retail marijuana licenses awarded by the City of Medford, a suburb of Boston.   The jury was shown multiple secretly recorded videos of O'Donovan meeting with the brother of the Medford police chief. The lawyer's initial request to have the chief simply read the license application submitted by his client, cannabis retailer Theory Wellness, morphed into an agreement that the chief would alter his ranking because O'Donovan promised to pay the brother $25,000, the videos showed. "It is terribly offensive and demeaning conduct in the operation of our government," Judge Young told O'Donovan on Wednesday. "The government must be free from that corruption." O'Donovan's role as an attorney weighed heavily on Judge Young's review of the government's request for 41 months in prison and O'Donovan's proposal for no more than a year and a day behind bars. "This is an attorney," the judge told O'Donovan's counsel, Martin G. Weinberg of Martin G. Weinberg PC. "You've got to deal with that. This is an attorney who has violated his oath, corruptly. I'm deeply troubled by that, not just the public corruption, the fact that this is an attorney." Prosecutors called the scheme "a simple case of old school, old-fashioned, smoky backroom bribery," arguing O'Donovan abused his attorney-client relationship with Theory Wellness to advance the purported bribe. He created a facade to try to convince the chief's brother that Theory Wellness's chief executive was "pulling the strings," all the while keeping the client in the dark about how he was advancing their interests before the licensing body, prosecutors said.  Weinberg told the court that O'Donovan had forfeited his right to practice law, a privilege he may never regain. The defense lawyer added that aspects of the case, including the government's alleged concoction of the bribery offense, counsel against a high sentence. O'Donovan, Weinberg argued, never paid a cent to Medford Police Chief Jack Buckley. While that may not make the ploy legal, it is very different from the "heartland" of political corruption and bribery cases, Weinberg said.  Weinberg added that the government must have been insecure about the case it was building in September 2022 because it had the chief's brother, Michael Buckley, "put to O'Donovan a hardener" — a fictional statement to draw a stark line between his request of having the chief read the application and a quid pro quo that they could build a case on. On that day, Michael Buckley told O'Donovan that Jack Buckley had reviewed the application and had ranked Theory Wellness low on the list of firms vying for the limited slots. But, the brother continued, the chief said he'd change his ranking because of the payment. "He said 'great' instead of the only answer which would have fit the law," Weinberg said, which is to rank the company as he saw fit. Acting U.S. Attorney Joshua S. Levy said in a statement Wednesday that O'Donovan was "driven by greed," and the scheme was undone when the police chief learned of the attorney's overture to his brother and told federal authorities. "Today's sentence should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks they can corrupt government officials for personal gain: your conduct will be uncovered, and will land you in federal prison — regardless of who you are," Levy said. In the lead-up to sentencing, O'Donovan's legal team had argued the conduct amounted to legally protected lobbying, despite how unsavory the arrangement seemed. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Jacobson said Wednesday the scheme was about O'Donovan lining his own pockets and crossing a bright line to serve his self-interest, namely a generous success fee that Theory Wellness offered if it won the license. Judge Young waved off the lobbying defense earlier in the case and reiterated his view of the alleged conduct. "It's a bribery case in this court's mind," the judge said. "It's not a lobbying case." In the moments before sentencing, O'Donovan stood to address the court. He decried the "terrible decision" he made, adding he has "no one to blame but myself." With the judge's permission, he turned to the courtroom gallery packed with his family and friends, apologizing to them and to his elderly mother for letting them down. "That was one of the most effective allocutions I've heard, and I believed it," Judge Young responded, adding that without it, he would have faced a far heavier sentence.  O'Donovan's attorney declined to comment on the sentence when approached outside the courtroom.  O'Donovan is represented by Martin G. Weinberg of Martin G. Weinberg PC, by Michael Pabian of Michael Pabian Law Office LLP, and by Timothy R. Flaherty. The government is represented by Kristina Barclay of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts and Jonathan E. Jacobson of the U.S. Department of Justice's Criminal Division. The case is U.S. v. O'Donovan, case number 1:22-cr-10141, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Pfizer, Moderna Spar Over Trial Date In COVID Vaccine IP Case - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

Moderna and Pfizer are battling over setting a trial date in a dispute in Massachusetts federal court over COVID-19 vaccine patent infringement claims, with Pfizer looking to schedule a trial after summary judgment motions are decided, while Moderna is arguing a firm trial date is needed now and should be set for this fall. Pfizer, alongside BioNTech, is hoping that the District of Massachusetts will wait on scheduling a trial start date until after summary judgment motions are ruled on in the summer and its attorneys are freed up from other conflicts. Meanwhile, Moderna claims that the case is on track for a September 2024 trial and that pushing it back would create scheduling conflicts with its witnesses.   "The longer that this case proceeds without a firm trial date, the greater the opportunity for the court, the parties, and the witnesses to fill their calendars with other commitments," Moderna said in its Tuesday motion. "As BioNTech and Pfizer have already informed Moderna, their lead trial counsel have previously-scheduled trial conflicts that would make a trial date in 2024 under the present schedule impossible," Pfizer and BioNTech countered in their Tuesday response. Moderna filed its motion first, stating that the case could start as early as September 2024, and adding that it couldn't be held any later than January 2025 under the court's rules. According to the Massachusetts-based biotechnology company, Pfizer's point about possible conflicts actually illustrates the need to set a trial date "sooner than later," as both the court and witnesses' schedules could fill up. In addition, Moderna said summary judgment is not a good reason to delay scheduling the trial because there are no issues brought up that would make a trial unnecessary, and even if there were, setting a trial date wouldn't affect the court's ability to resolve the summary judgment. Moderna said it was worried that Pfizer was angling to slow the trial, as it told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a related matter that it wasn't expecting the trial to occur until next spring. "Moderna is concerned that defendants are seeking to delay trial in this case," Moderna stated. "In two recent filings submitted to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Pfizer and BioNTech have suggested that trial in this case will not occur until 'around April 2025,' and that it was 'speculative' and 'willfully naive' to expect the court to schedule trial sooner." However, Pfizer said in its response that it is the court's "established practice" to set trial dates after deciding on summary judgment motions, which in this case is set for July, and there is no reason to deviate from that. "The scope and length of the trial, and the time necessary for trial, will depend on the outcome of the summary judgment motions," Pfizer and BioNTech said. "At this time, the parties are proceeding into expert discovery and nothing has changed to warrant departure from the established practice." According to the two biotech companies, several members of their trial counsel have other trials scheduled throughout October and December 2024 that would make any trial dates in 2024 impossible. Pfizer said that if the court did decide to schedule a trial date ahead of summary judgment, sometime in early 2025 would be appropriate, as it would reduce scheduling conflicts and would not prejudice Moderna. Moderna first sued in August 2022, claiming that Pfizer and BioNTech could have steered clear of Moderna's patented technology in developing their COVID-19 vaccine, but instead infringed two key components of Moderna's platform. According to the suit, they used the same chemical modification and encoded their vaccine for the same coronavirus protein — the full-length spike protein — that Moderna says it pioneered long ago. Counsel for Moderna did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Counsel for Pfizer and BioNTech declined to comment. The patents in-suit are U.S. Patents Nos. 10,993,127; 10,702,600; and 10,898,574. Moderna is represented by William F. Lee, Emily R. Whelan, Kevin S. Prussia, Andrew J. Danford and Amy K. Wigmore of WilmerHale. Pfizer is represented by Thomas H. L. Selby, Stanley E. Fisher, A. Joshua Podoll, Kathryn S. Kayali, Michael Xun Liu, Michael Mestitz, Julie Tavares, Ayelet M. Evrony, Derrick M. Anderson and Haylee Bernal Anderson of Williams & Connolly LLP, and Lee C. Bromberg, Erik P. Belt and Wyley Proctor of McCarter & English LLP. BioNTech is represented by Bruce M. Wexler, Eric W. Dittmann, Young J. Park, Ashley N. Mays-Williams, Scott F. Peachman, Karthik R. Kasaraneni and Ryan Meuth of Paul Hastings LLP, and Jeffrey S. Robbins, Joseph D. Lipchitz and Gregory M. Boucher of Saul Ewing LLP. The case is ModernaTX Inc. et al. v. Pfizer Inc. et al., case number 1:22-cv-11378, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Ill. Jury Convicts Trader Of $30M Bond Fraud

An Illinois federal jury on Wednesday convicted a former bond trader of tanking his Atlanta-based former employer by claiming inflated commissions on his trades and entering false and unauthorized trades that caused $30 million in losses. The jury deliberated for about six hours before it found former IFS Securities Inc. trader Keith Wakefield guilty of securities and wire fraud over trading activity between 2017 and 2019 that Wakefield testified was not an effort to enrich himself but rather cover his hedges and fix significant mistakes he'd made while trading U.S. Department of Treasury and municipal bonds. The government claimed during trial that Wakefield, IFS' former head of fixed income trading, caused IFS and its customers to bleed money by claiming "hugely inflated" commissions on secondary bond market trades he brokered and using IFS' money to enter false and unauthorized trades that "wildly exceeded the firm's risk limitations." Wakefield tried to recoup initial losses by making more bond trades, but those just resulted in further losses, prosecutors said. Wakefield also embezzled about $820,000 from IFS by reflecting false commissions, the government claims. In one instance, the former trader claimed a $64,000 profit for one of his trades when the actual profit was only $1,848. The inflated claim caused IFS to pay him thousands of dollars in unearned commissions, the government said. The government's case centered largely on a recorded August 2019 phone call between Wakefield and former IFS technology chief Kristiaan Sheedy, in which the former trader told Sheedy to "think fraudulent" as he explained his trading activity. Wakefield testified during trial that he wasn't acknowledging that he'd been engaging in fraud but was simply trying to explain his trades in a way Sheedy could grasp. Wakefield also testified that his trades preceding IFS' demise stemmed from efforts to cover a multimillion-dollar buy he couldn't enter by the end of a trading day and to correct a "fat-finger" ticketing error that he still struggles to understand or explain. While on the stand, the former trader said his multimillion-dollar buy mistake happened because he'd sold about $40 million worth of 10-year bonds into the market intending to buy them back at the end of the day when prices had spiked and interest rates had decreased. He testified that an all-day meeting with IFS' investment banker and a public official tied him up for several hours, and the market had closed by the time he returned to his desk to buy the bonds back. Wakefield also claimed on the stand that wearing multiple hats at work and juggling personal family concerns led him to log a trade in June 2019 as though its price per share was thousands of dollars different from its actual contract price, which made IFS' trading account seem as though it had $1.8 million in it and "was wrong from the moment [he] saw it." He said he tried to enter another trade to create the opposite effect of his "fat-finger" trade, and eventually turned his 10-year bonds into 30-year bonds, but neither approach worked to fix his mistake because market prices continued to move unfavorably. However, no one sought those details or considered those factors before IFS executives and government officials "jumped to conclusions" about Wakefield's trading, his attorney, James Vanzant of Blaine & Vanzant LLP, asserted during closing arguments. Instead, the government based its charges on an "imperfect understanding" of IFS' trading system and incorrect assumptions about the nature of Wakefield's trades, the attorney argued. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Franzblau called those assertions "nonsense" during trial closings, saying Wakefield's testimony was simply an effort to confuse the jury because he knew he couldn't explain the trial evidence in a way that made sense. The government also blasted the former trader's argument that IFS could have prevented its losses by closing its positions differently or looking at certain reports, saying the assertion was like "an arsonist lighting a forest fire and then complaining that the fire department was wasting water putting it out." Wakefield is represented by Holly N. Blaine and James G. Vanzant of Blaine & Vanzant LLP. The government is represented by Sean Franzblau and Bradley Tucker of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois. The case is USA v. Keith Wakefield, case number 1:21-cr-00614, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Spouses Ran PPP Fraud In Secret, Ga. Defendants Tell Jury - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

A Georgia man and woman standing trial for charges that they helped orchestrate a scheme to illegally obtain $11 million in Paycheck Protection Program loans were unwittingly implicated in the fraud by their respective spouses, the defendants' lawyers told a federal jury Wednesday. Attorneys for Teldrin Foster and Carla Jackson, whom prosecutors say were instrumental in the 22-person fraud ring, argued during opening statements that both had in fact been bystanders, wrongly accused thanks to their close connections to the real perpetrators. Jackson's attorney, David Marshall, said that despite "all of these lawyers" the government assembled, he was confident there was "no evidence" his client — who is accused of using her business to help launder the proceeds of the loans — played any part in the scheme. Instead, Marshall continued, it was Jackson's ex-husband John Gaines who kept "secrets upon secrets upon secrets" from her. Not only did Gaines hide his involvement with the scheme, he said, but he also cheated on Jackson and fathered children out of wedlock prior to their divorce. "Carla Jackson committed no crime," Marshall said, adding the planned testimony of Gaines — who pled guilty to his role in the scheme last week — would "inject into this case more than the reasonable doubt required" to acquit Jackson. This week's trial is the culmination of a nearly 4-year-old investigation into the fraud ring the government said was masterminded by Duluth, Georgia's Darrell Thomas. According to prosecutors, Thomas recruited a wide cast of accomplices to file PPP loan applications during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The program, enacted as part of 2020's CARES Act, was designed to provide immediate relief to business owners by doling out hundreds of billions of dollars so they could keep workers on their payroll during the initial shutdown from the virus. Thomas pled guilty to profiting immensely from the initiative using forged IRS papers for front businesses, raking in more than $14.7 million from the PPP and other pandemic relief programs. Originally set to begin Monday, the proceedings were delayed after Jackson and Foster's co-defendant Jerry Baptiste failed to appear in court. Federal marshals were dispatched to track down Baptiste, but he remained unaccounted for as of Tuesday morning, when U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee elected to move into jury selection without him. The U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately have an update on Baptiste's status. In presenting the government's case Wednesday, the DOJ's Siji Moore painted a portrait of a sophisticated criminal enterprise with Thomas at its head. Below Thomas were operatives like Foster, Moore added, who helped prepare falsified IRS documents, while other members recruited agents to register front businesses. The proceeds were then laundered by businesses like Jackson's "that only existed on paper"; Moore said it had no bank transactions in the first months of 2020, a period of inactivity abruptly followed by a series of six-figure deposits. "This case is about Teldrin Foster and Carla Jackson's decision to participate in fraud during a time of national crisis," Moore told the jury, a contention backed up by "a long paper trail" of bank records, computer files and digital communications. Foster and Thomas had a relationship predating the scheme, Moore said, but key to its success was the fact that Foster's wife worked for the Internal Revenue Service. Gena Pyfrom-Foster — who pled guilty to using her post to further the conspiracy and is due to begin a 41-month prison sentence this summer — served as the group's inside contact who worked with Foster to create the fake documents, he said.  But Foster's attorney, Leigh Ann Webster, argued it was Foster's wife whose dirty hands stained her client. In Webster's telling, Pyfrom-Foster and Thomas engaged in the scheme behind Foster's back. Both had access to Foster's email account, which the government says was used to communicate the details of the fraud, constituting "significant evidence" that Foster was never involved. Thomas reportedly owed Foster tens of thousands of dollars from prior business ventures together, Webster said, leaving Foster to assume any money he received from the scheme was simply a belated repayment of those debts. "From the government's perspective, this story is simple," Webster said, adding "there's more — a lot more — to this story." The government is represented by Siji Moore of the U.S. Department of Justice's Fraud Section and Nathan Parker Kitchens, Tal C. Chaiken, Radka T. Nations, Sekret T. Sneed and Samir Kaushal of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. Carla Jackson is represented by David D. Marshall. Teldrin Foster is represented by Saraliene Durrett of Saraliene Smith Durrett LLC and Leigh Ann Webster of Strickland Webster LLC. The case is USA v. Thomas et al., case number 1:20-cr-00296, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

A federal jury in Maryland on Tuesday found former Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby guilty of lying on mortgage applications for one of her two Florida vacation homes, but not guilty on the application for the other home. After a more than two-week trial in Greenbelt, Maryland, the jurors convicted Mosby of making a false mortgage application, ruling after a day of deliberations that Mosby lied about receiving a $5,000 gift from her husband as she closed on a condominium in Longboat Key, Fla., according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. The jury, however, acquitted her on similar charges related to the purchase of an eight-bedroom house in Kissimmee. The split verdict is a second conviction for Mosby, Baltimore's top prosecutor from 2015 to 2023. In November, a separate federal jury convicted her of two counts of perjury in connection with her withdrawal of thousands of dollars from her city retirement account under a federal law designed to help people suffering amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Mosby is facing up to 30 years for the mortgage fraud conviction, and the perjury counts from the November trial each carry a maximum of five years' incarceration. Still, actual federal sentences are usually less than the maximum. U.S. Attorney Erek L. Barron, whose Maryland office prosecuted the case, said in a statement following the verdict Tuesday: "We humbly respect the court's considered rulings, opposing counsels' zealous advocacy, and the wisdom of both jury verdicts in this case and we remain focused on our mission to uphold the rule of law." Local media reports say Mosby did not comment as she left court. During Mosby's latest trial, federal prosecutors vied to prove that Mosby spun a web of lies — about her federal tax debts, rental intentions and the $5,000 gift — as she purchased two homes in Florida with the retirement funds that she withdrew. Mosby's lawyers contended that Mosby was a first-time homebuyer and real estate rookie who leaned on professionals throughout the home purchase processes. Evidently, jurors were pushed toward conviction by the so-called gift letter that Mosby sent to her mortgage company in February 2021. In it, she said she had received a $5,000 gift from her then-husband and Baltimore City Council President Nick Mosby. Marilyn Mosby had the money and needed it to lock in a lower interest rate on the Longboat condo, but the funds were tied up in a custodial account that she shared with her daughter and the lender wouldn't accept. So, prosecutors said, Mosby wired the $5,000 to her husband, and he sent the money to an escrow agent. Marilyn Mosby testified that she wired the money because she was not confident that her husband could come up with the cash by closing. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Delaney, on the other hand, said during closing statements Monday that the gift letter is a smoking gun. "On the gift letter, it's open and shut," he told jurors. Although jurors hung their hats on the letter, opening and closing statements focused heavily on the $64,000 in back taxes that Nick and Marilyn Mosby racked up in tax years 2014 and 2015. Mosby still owed thousands of dollars to the Internal Revenue Service when she applied for mortgages on the vacation homes in 2020 and 2021, prosecutors said, but she indicated that she was not in default or delinquent on any federal debt. Mosby's legal team, meanwhile, insisted that Mosby was unaware of the lingering debt because her now ex-husband lied to her for years about paying it off. The couple divorced last year, and both Marilyn and Nick Mosby testified at trial. Prosecutors also accused Mosby of signing a contract that promised to maintain exclusive control over the Kissimmee property despite having already given control to a vacation rental company. In addition, prosecutors said Mosby sent a letter to her mortgage company falsely stating that she had lived in the Kissimmee property for the past 70 days. The government is represented by Sean R. Delaney and Aaron S.J. Zelinsky of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. Marilyn Mosby is represented by James Wyda, Maggie Grace, Sedira Banan and Cullen Macbeth of the Office of the Federal Public Defender. The case is U.S. v. Marilyn Mosby, case number 1:22-cr-00007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Read more at: https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1794544?nl_pk=7089bcf1-8829-40c2-883f-4d8f8fbbf1ea&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=1794544&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0?copied=1

Mosby Guilty On One Count Of Lying For Fla. Mortgage - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

A federal jury in Maryland on Tuesday found former Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby guilty of lying on mortgage applications for one of her two Florida vacation homes, but not guilty on the application for the other home. After a more than two-week trial in Greenbelt, Maryland, the jurors convicted Mosby of making a false mortgage application, ruling after a day of deliberations that Mosby lied about receiving a $5,000 gift from her husband as she closed on a condominium in Longboat Key, Fla., according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. The jury, however, acquitted her on similar charges related to the purchase of an eight-bedroom house in Kissimmee. The split verdict is a second conviction for Mosby, Baltimore's top prosecutor from 2015 to 2023. In November, a separate federal jury convicted her of two counts of perjury in connection with her withdrawal of thousands of dollars from her city retirement account under a federal law designed to help people suffering amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Mosby is facing up to 30 years for the mortgage fraud conviction, and the perjury counts from the November trial each carry a maximum of five years' incarceration. Still, actual federal sentences are usually less than the maximum. U.S. Attorney Erek L. Barron, whose Maryland office prosecuted the case, said in a statement following the verdict Tuesday: "We humbly respect the court's considered rulings, opposing counsels' zealous advocacy, and the wisdom of both jury verdicts in this case and we remain focused on our mission to uphold the rule of law." Local media reports say Mosby did not comment as she left court. During Mosby's latest trial, federal prosecutors vied to prove that Mosby spun a web of lies — about her federal tax debts, rental intentions and the $5,000 gift — as she purchased two homes in Florida with the retirement funds that she withdrew. Mosby's lawyers contended that Mosby was a first-time homebuyer and real estate rookie who leaned on professionals throughout the home purchase processes. Evidently, jurors were pushed toward conviction by the so-called gift letter that Mosby sent to her mortgage company in February 2021. In it, she said she had received a $5,000 gift from her then-husband and Baltimore City Council President Nick Mosby. Marilyn Mosby had the money and needed it to lock in a lower interest rate on the Longboat condo, but the funds were tied up in a custodial account that she shared with her daughter and the lender wouldn't accept. So, prosecutors said, Mosby wired the $5,000 to her husband, and he sent the money to an escrow agent. Marilyn Mosby testified that she wired the money because she was not confident that her husband could come up with the cash by closing. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Delaney, on the other hand, said during closing statements Monday that the gift letter is a smoking gun. "On the gift letter, it's open and shut," he told jurors. Although jurors hung their hats on the letter, opening and closing statements focused heavily on the $64,000 in back taxes that Nick and Marilyn Mosby racked up in tax years 2014 and 2015. Mosby still owed thousands of dollars to the Internal Revenue Service when she applied for mortgages on the vacation homes in 2020 and 2021, prosecutors said, but she indicated that she was not in default or delinquent on any federal debt. Mosby's legal team, meanwhile, insisted that Mosby was unaware of the lingering debt because her now ex-husband lied to her for years about paying it off. The couple divorced last year, and both Marilyn and Nick Mosby testified at trial. Prosecutors also accused Mosby of signing a contract that promised to maintain exclusive control over the Kissimmee property despite having already given control to a vacation rental company. In addition, prosecutors said Mosby sent a letter to her mortgage company falsely stating that she had lived in the Kissimmee property for the past 70 days. The government is represented by Sean R. Delaney and Aaron S.J. Zelinsky of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. Marilyn Mosby is represented by James Wyda, Maggie Grace, Sedira Banan and Cullen Macbeth of the Office of the Federal Public Defender. The case is U.S. v. Marilyn Mosby, case number 1:22-cr-00007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M. Certified Legal Documents Preparer (800) 590-6698 (Telephone) cldp@mail.com (E-Mail) https://cldpmarcsmith.com (Website) American Bar Association No.: 6036858 Please feel free to reach out via social media as well: https://www.instagram.com/marksmithcldp/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/marksmithcldp https://medium.com/@cldpmarksmith https://twitter.com/cldpmarksmith https://mrmarksmithllmcp.quora.com/ https://www.youtube.com/@cldpmarksmith https://www.pinterest.com/cldpmarksmith/ https://www.facebook.com/certifiedlegaldocumentspreparermarksmith