United States v. Mathur
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22841
| 1st Cir. | 2010Background
- Amit Mathur ran Entrust Capital Management as a hedge fund manager from 1997 to 2005, using funds from at least 15 defrauded clients and misrepresenting assets and performance.
- Investors’ money was deposited into a Commerce Bank Entrust account controlled by Mathur, with transfers to a brokerage account he controlled and substantial funds used for personal purposes.
- Clients received statements alleging gains and hedge fund investments, while actual performance showed substantial losses and missing funds, with mass misappropriation totaling millions.
- Massad, a principal investor, provided over $13 million for hedge fund investments and later additional funds; many of his investments failed to be executed as instructed, while he received falsified dividends.
- In 2005, after SEC investigations began, Mathur urged investors to destroy gain statements and replace them with losses statements; the SEC investigation continued and led to criminal and civil actions.
- Trial occurred in May 2008; the government disclosed a previously undisclosed SEC Memorandum near trial, which the defense argued was Brady material; the district court declined to dismiss and the jury convicted on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether late Brady disclosure required new trial relief | Mathur argues the district court erred in denying new trial due to Brady delay. | Mathur contends late material undermined trial fairness and impeachment value. | No abuse; no reversible prejudice found; new trial denied. |
| Whether delayed materials would have altered trial outcome | Materials could impeach Massad and show Massad’s manipulation by Sten. | Impeachment value was marginal and insufficient to undermine confidence. | Delayed materials not likely to change verdict; no prejudice. |
| Whether Greenberg Traurig Documents caused sentencing prejudice | Documents could affect loss calculation and restitution, shortening sentence. | Harms from late disclosure could reduce sentence; delay harmed fairness. | No prejudice; defendant rejected continuance; sentencing affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (reasonable probability standard for Brady prejudice; undermining confidence in outcome)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (definition of material impeachment or exculpatory evidence and prejudice standard)
- United States v. Connolly, 504 F.3d 206 (1st Cir. 2007) (Brady standard and materiality; focus on favorable evidence and prejudice)
- United States v. Natanel, 938 F.2d 302 (1st Cir. 1991) (trial court's firsthand assessment of impact of new evidence deserves deference)
- Ruiz v. United States, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (pretrial plea negotiations not governed by Brady; limits to sentencing impact)
- Diaz-Villafane, 874 F.2d 43 (1st Cir. 1989) (continuance as remedy for Brady violations; failure to request continuance undermines prejudice claim)