560 F. App'x 69
2d Cir.2014Background
- Annabi, Yonkers City Council member (2001–2009), received substantial funds from Jereis, Yonkers Republican Party chairman.
- Annabi changed her votes on Ridge Hill and Longfellow development projects after receiving money and other benefits.
- Counts 1–6 allege a corrupt agreement; Counts 7–9 involve mortgage fraud; Counts 10–11 involve tax fraud.
- Jury convicted both defendants on all eleven counts after a six-week trial; sentences were imposed, and forfeiture was ordered.
- District Court determined forfeiture of $209,501.99 and denial of post-trial motions; defendants appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Counts 1–6 | Evidence supports a corrupt agreement via payments for votes. | Payments stem from romantic/other reasons, not a corrupt exchange. | Sufficient evidence to sustain convictions on Counts 1–6. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Counts 7–11 | Evidence proves mortgage and tax fraud beyond reasonable doubt. | Evidence insufficient or improperly admitted. | Sufficient evidence to sustain convictions on Counts 7–11. |
| Brady violation claim | Government suppressed favorable impeachment evidence. | Suppressed evidence prejudiced defense; new trial warranted. | No Brady violation; no new trial required. |
| Jury misconduct | Alternate juror's disclosure warranted reversal for misconduct. | District Court erred by not conducting inquiry. | No abuse of discretion; no reversible prejudice. |
| Forfeiture of proceeds (Counts 1–6) | All proceeds traceable to conspiracy may be forfeited; joint liability applies. | Some payments predate alleged acts; promissory note repayment argues exclusion. | Forfeiture proper; jointly and severally liable for $209,501.99. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Henry, 325 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2003) (sufficiency review with favorable-to-government standard)
- United States v. Bruno, 661 F.3d 733 (2d Cir. 2011) (inference of guilt from benefits received and related conduct)
- United States v. Contorinis, 692 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2012) (forfeiture of proceeds may extend to consequences reasonably foreseeable)
- United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2011) (preponderance standard for forfeiture findings on appeal)
- United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) (Brady violation elements and prejudice standard)
- United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing district court jury-misconduct inquiries)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1998) (excessiveness in forfeiture under Eighth Amendment)