This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/nyregion/norman-seabrook-guilty-trial.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Norman Seabrook, Ex-Leader of Jail Officers, Guilty of Bribery in Trial That Cast Shadow Over De Blasio Norman Seabrook, Ex-Leader of Jail Officers, Guilty of Bribery in Trial That Cast Shadow Over De Blasio
(35 minutes later)
Norman Seabrook, the former head of the New York City correction officers’ union, was found guilty of bribery on Wednesday in a case that cast a shadow over Mayor Bill de Blasio’s fund-raising efforts and touched on corruption in the New York Police Department. Norman Seabrook, the former head of the New York City correction officers’ union, was found guilty of bribery and conspiracy on Wednesday in a case that cast a shadow over Mayor Bill de Blasio’s fund-raising efforts and touched on corruption in the New York Police Department.
The jury remained deadlocked on a second count of conspiracy. After the panel returned its partial verdict at 3:15 p.m., the judge told the jury to continue deliberating. The jury returned a partial verdict at 3:15 p.m., They found Mr. Seabrook guilty of accepting a bribe but said they were deadlocked on a conspiracy charge. “Your job is not done yet,” said Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who is presiding over the case. “You have another count to consider.” An hour later, the jury returned to say they had found Mr. Seabrook guilty of conspiracy to take a bribe as well.
“Your job is not done yet,” said Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who is presiding over the case. “You have another count to consider.” Prosecutors presented evidence that Mr. Seabrook, 58, who for two decades led the correction officers’ union, steered $20 million of his union’s money into a risky hedge fund in exchange for a kickback worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. It was the second time a jury heard evidence: His first trial ended in a mistrial last fall.
Mr. Seabrook, 58, who for two decades led the correction officers’ union, was convicted of steering $20 million of his union’s money into a risky hedge fund in exchange for a kickback worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. It was the second time a jury heard evidence: His first trial ended in a mistrial last fall. When the first guilty verdict was announced, some of Mr. Seabrook’s supporters began to cry. One woman shook her head and began to pray; a man held his face in his hands.
Because it was a partial verdict and the jury was to continue deliberating, the judge instructed the audience in the courtroom not to react. But when the guilty verdict was announced, some of Mr. Seabrook’s supporters began to cry. One woman shook her head and began to pray; a man held his face in his hands.
“Don’t cry, baby,” Mr. Seabrook said to a supporter in the front row.“Don’t cry, baby,” Mr. Seabrook said to a supporter in the front row.
Much of the government’s case rested on the word of Jona Rechnitz, a wealthy real estate developer who both sides agreed was a prodigious liar with an unsavory history.Much of the government’s case rested on the word of Jona Rechnitz, a wealthy real estate developer who both sides agreed was a prodigious liar with an unsavory history.
“We are not asking you to like Jona Rechnitz,” a prosecutor, Lara Pomerantz, told the jury at the beginning of the trial. “We are not asking you to approve of the way he lived his life.”“We are not asking you to like Jona Rechnitz,” a prosecutor, Lara Pomerantz, told the jury at the beginning of the trial. “We are not asking you to approve of the way he lived his life.”
Still, the government relied on Mr. Rechnitz’s testimony to build a narrative that ultimately led to Mr. Seabrook’s conviction. Mr. Rechnitz, who pleaded guilty to fraud conspiracy and is cooperating with the government, said he brokered a deal between Mr. Seabrook and Murray Huberfeld, a family friend and the founder of the hedge fund Platinum Partners. Mr. Seabrook agreed to invest the union’s retirement money in Mr. Huberfeld’s fund, and in exchange, Mr. Huberfeld would pay him a cut of the profit, the government said.Still, the government relied on Mr. Rechnitz’s testimony to build a narrative that ultimately led to Mr. Seabrook’s conviction. Mr. Rechnitz, who pleaded guilty to fraud conspiracy and is cooperating with the government, said he brokered a deal between Mr. Seabrook and Murray Huberfeld, a family friend and the founder of the hedge fund Platinum Partners. Mr. Seabrook agreed to invest the union’s retirement money in Mr. Huberfeld’s fund, and in exchange, Mr. Huberfeld would pay him a cut of the profit, the government said.
Mr. Seabrook ended up investing $20 million in the fund, $19 million of which the union eventually lost.Mr. Seabrook ended up investing $20 million in the fund, $19 million of which the union eventually lost.
Once one of the city’s most powerful labor leaders, Mr. Seabrook had been charged with one count of honest services wire fraud, or bribery, and one count of conspiracy; each carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.Once one of the city’s most powerful labor leaders, Mr. Seabrook had been charged with one count of honest services wire fraud, or bribery, and one count of conspiracy; each carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
It was a risky proposition for the prosecution to once again depend on Mr. Rechnitz, whose inconsistent testimony in the last trial seemed to lead to a hung jury. A juror in the fall referred to him as a “straight-up liar.”It was a risky proposition for the prosecution to once again depend on Mr. Rechnitz, whose inconsistent testimony in the last trial seemed to lead to a hung jury. A juror in the fall referred to him as a “straight-up liar.”
Indeed, the trial often returned to a contentious point: Who was really on trial?Indeed, the trial often returned to a contentious point: Who was really on trial?
The defense tried to portray Mr. Rechnitz as someone who had invented a story about a bribe to Mr. Seabrook to persuade the authorities to reduce his own sentence. In her opening statement, Margaret E. Lynaugh, one of Mr. Seabrook’s lawyers, said the case should be called “Jona Rechnitz versus Norman Seabrook.”The defense tried to portray Mr. Rechnitz as someone who had invented a story about a bribe to Mr. Seabrook to persuade the authorities to reduce his own sentence. In her opening statement, Margaret E. Lynaugh, one of Mr. Seabrook’s lawyers, said the case should be called “Jona Rechnitz versus Norman Seabrook.”
“First, Jona Rechnitz is a pathological liar,” Ms. Lynaugh said. “And second, Jona Rechnitz always takes care of Jona Rechnitz.”“First, Jona Rechnitz is a pathological liar,” Ms. Lynaugh said. “And second, Jona Rechnitz always takes care of Jona Rechnitz.”
The government tried to focus the jurors’ attention on Mr. Seabrook. “The United States v. Jona Rechnitz is a case that already happened. It ended with Jona Rechnitz’s guilty plea,” said Martin S. Bell, a prosecutor, in his closing argument. “This is nobody else’s trial.”The government tried to focus the jurors’ attention on Mr. Seabrook. “The United States v. Jona Rechnitz is a case that already happened. It ended with Jona Rechnitz’s guilty plea,” said Martin S. Bell, a prosecutor, in his closing argument. “This is nobody else’s trial.”
The government said that the bribe was delivered in a nearly cinematic scheme: One December evening, Mr. Rechnitz took $60,000 in cash from a safe in his office, and crammed the bills into a handbag he had purchased from the Salvatore Ferragamo store, Mr. Seabrook’s favorite designer. He then delivered the bag to Mr. Seabrook before they attended a Torah dedication ceremony together.The government said that the bribe was delivered in a nearly cinematic scheme: One December evening, Mr. Rechnitz took $60,000 in cash from a safe in his office, and crammed the bills into a handbag he had purchased from the Salvatore Ferragamo store, Mr. Seabrook’s favorite designer. He then delivered the bag to Mr. Seabrook before they attended a Torah dedication ceremony together.
This time, jurors seemed to believe that Mr. Rechnitz was telling the truth, even as he admitted to a litany of lies he told in the past. Among other things, he said he became a police chaplain in Westchester County in order to obtain a special parking pass, though he had no religious qualifications; he applied for a pistol permit and lied on the application, claiming he worked in the jewelry business and therefore needed the weapon; he filed an insurance claim for a $59,000 lost watch, found the watch, and kept the insurance money; and he said he owned a yacht he was actually renting, writing to the crew that “staff is to act as if this client, Jona, owns the yacht and the client should be treated as such.”This time, jurors seemed to believe that Mr. Rechnitz was telling the truth, even as he admitted to a litany of lies he told in the past. Among other things, he said he became a police chaplain in Westchester County in order to obtain a special parking pass, though he had no religious qualifications; he applied for a pistol permit and lied on the application, claiming he worked in the jewelry business and therefore needed the weapon; he filed an insurance claim for a $59,000 lost watch, found the watch, and kept the insurance money; and he said he owned a yacht he was actually renting, writing to the crew that “staff is to act as if this client, Jona, owns the yacht and the client should be treated as such.”
Mr. Huberfeld, who was Mr. Seabrook’s co-defendant in the first trial, pleaded guilty to wire fraud conspiracy in May.Mr. Huberfeld, who was Mr. Seabrook’s co-defendant in the first trial, pleaded guilty to wire fraud conspiracy in May.
In this trial, Mr. Rechnitz was caught in fewer inconsistencies on the stand, and he seemed more prepared to answer the defense’s questions. He also spent less time talking about his relationship with Mr. de Blasio, testimony that dominated much of the first trial.In this trial, Mr. Rechnitz was caught in fewer inconsistencies on the stand, and he seemed more prepared to answer the defense’s questions. He also spent less time talking about his relationship with Mr. de Blasio, testimony that dominated much of the first trial.
At that time, he said he donated tens of thousands of dollars to Mr. de Blasio’s re-election campaign in exchange for a direct line to City Hall, including the mayor’s personal phone number and email address. But this time, prosecutors kept Mr. Rechnitz’s testimony more narrowly focused on his shady business dealings and on the payment to Mr. Seabrook.At that time, he said he donated tens of thousands of dollars to Mr. de Blasio’s re-election campaign in exchange for a direct line to City Hall, including the mayor’s personal phone number and email address. But this time, prosecutors kept Mr. Rechnitz’s testimony more narrowly focused on his shady business dealings and on the payment to Mr. Seabrook.
The defense argued that Mr. Rechnitz would say whatever he thought would help him get a more lenient sentence for his own crime. It was true, they said, that Mr. Rechnitz had showered Mr. Seabrook with expensive trips, fine cigars, fancy meals, and flattery. But he did not betray his union in response.The defense argued that Mr. Rechnitz would say whatever he thought would help him get a more lenient sentence for his own crime. It was true, they said, that Mr. Rechnitz had showered Mr. Seabrook with expensive trips, fine cigars, fancy meals, and flattery. But he did not betray his union in response.
“You can fault Norman Seabrook for falling for Jona Rechnitz’s act,” said Paul Shechtman, Mr. Seabrook’s lawyer. “But boy, was it a good act.”“You can fault Norman Seabrook for falling for Jona Rechnitz’s act,” said Paul Shechtman, Mr. Seabrook’s lawyer. “But boy, was it a good act.”
After the partial verdict was announced on Wednesday, the lawyers and the judge left to discuss whether the jury should continue to deliberate. In their absence, Mr. Seabrook’s supporters consoled each other. The jury sat, almost completely still, in the silent courtroom, while the man they had just pronounced guilty looked on. Several jurors wiped away tears as they left the federal courthouse. Mr. Seabrook, who had appeared to be in good spirits throughout the trial, sometimes invoking his trust in God with reporters, left the courthouse with a cigar in his mouth, smiling broadly.