481 F.Supp.3d 122
E.D.N.Y2020Background
- Indictment (Feb. 2019) charged Michael Cohn, a former SEC employee, with obstruction, unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, and later a CFAA count and a theft-of-public-property count in superseding indictments.
- The case involved voluminous, document‑intensive discovery and complex legal issues; press releases made the prosecution public.
- COVID‑19 caused repeated trial postponements; the Court proposed a bench trial and Cohn consented in writing to waive a jury; the Government refused to consent.
- The Court evaluated whether, under Rule 23(a) and the Singer exception, it could order a nonjury trial over the Government’s objection given extraordinary circumstances.
- The Court emphasized case‑specific concerns: prolonged pendency, uncertain timing for a safe jury trial, the case’s length/complexity, Cohn’s age/health (masking/testimony issues), public interest in speedy resolution, and risk of juror confusion from contested legal issues.
- Balancing Singer factors, the Court overruled the Government’s objection and ordered a bench trial after an in‑court waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may conduct a bench trial over the Government’s objection under Rule 23(a)/Singer | Government: Rule 23 allows it to withhold consent; not required to justify refusal; prefers jury trials. | Cohn: COVID‑19 and case circumstances make a bench trial necessary to protect rights and secure a speedy resolution. | Court: Applied Singer factors and overruled the Government; ordered nonjury trial after on‑the‑record waiver. |
| Whether Government’s motive for objecting was improper | Government: Presumption of prosecutorial integrity; no bad motive shown; no obligation to explain. | Cohn: Suggested Government’s blanket refusal could be challenged. | Court: Found no evidence of improper motive and accepted presumption of integrity, but held motive is not the sole basis for denying waiver. |
| Whether a jury trial would conflict with defendant’s other constitutional rights (right to testify/health) | Government: Pandemic challenges affect many cases; does not uniquely distinguish Cohn. | Cohn: His health requires masking; testifying unmasked would create unacceptable risk and masking risks juror prejudice — effectively forcing a choice between rights. | Court: Found the conflict (right to jury vs. meaningful right to testify) substantial; this factor weighed heavily for a bench trial. |
| Whether speedy‑trial/public‑interest and case‑specific factors favor bench trial | Government: Jury trial should not be displaced; contends risks are similar for bench trials. | Cohn: Long pendency, public interest, case complexity, evidentiary confusion, and uncertainty about timing of a safe jury trial favor overruling objection. | Court: Held speedy‑trial and public‑interest concerns plus complexity and juror‑confusion risks favor a bench trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (1965) (Rule 23 framework and limits on waiving jury trial)
- Sun Myung Moon v. United States, 718 F.2d 1210 (2d Cir. 1983) (prosecutor need not articulate reasons for denying consent; presumption of integrity)
- Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276 (1930) (defendant may waive jury trial)
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006) (Speedy Trial Act protects public interest; limits on defendant waivers)
- Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) (reiterating Sixth Amendment jury‑trial guarantee)
- United States v. Valle, 807 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2015) (interpretation of "exceeds authorized access" under CFAA discussed by lower court)
- United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2006) (defendant’s right to testify discussed)