United States v. Seabrook, 968 F.3d 224

Norman Seabrook, former COBA president, was convicted at jury trial of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud and honest services wire fraud; sentenced to 58 months, three years’ supervised release, and $19 million restitution.
Prosecution introduced evidence that COBA lost $19 million after investing with Platinum Partners and that Platinum later went into bankruptcy.
Seabrook argued the loss/bankruptcy evidence was irrelevant or unduly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and 403.
Seabrook also challenged the district judge’s on-the-record questioning about the “suitability” of COBA’s investments as allegedly partial and subject to plain-error review.
After trial Seabrook sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence alleging cooperating witness Jona Rechnitz later engaged in fraudulent conduct (including civil suits and a questioned jewelry-theft report), claiming this showed Rechnitz lied at trial.
The district court denied the new-trial motion; the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction and denial of new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of COBA loss and Platinum bankruptcy evidence	Gov't: Loss and bankruptcy evidence is relevant to Seabrook’s corrupt intent and to materiality (riskiness of investment).	Seabrook: Harm is not an element of honest-services fraud; evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Rules 402/403.	Affirmed. Evidence relevant to intent and materiality; district court did not abuse discretion and limited evidence to mitigate prejudice.
District judge’s questioning about investment "suitability"	Gov't: Court questioning was proper inquiry to develop testimony for jury.	Seabrook: Judge’s repeated in-court directions/comments in jury presence showed partiality; plain error.	Affirmed. No plain error; judge limited to eliciting testimony, repeatedly instructed jury on impartiality and credibility.
Denial of new trial based on post-trial allegations about Rechnitz	Seabrook: Civil suits and alleged staged theft show Rechnitz lied about reform/credibility at trial; warrants new trial.	Gov't: Post-trial misconduct does not prove perjury at trial; evidence is cumulative and wouldn’t change verdict.	Affirmed. No showing Rechnitz committed perjury at trial; new evidence cumulative and would not have affected outcome.

United States v. Barret, 848 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2017) (district courts have broad discretion over evidence admission)
United States v. McDermott, 245 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2001) (standard of deference to trial court on evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2003) (intent and materiality in honest-services fraud)
United States v. Coppola, 671 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2012) (highly deferential Rule 403 review)
United States v. Valenti, 60 F.3d 941 (2d Cir. 1995) (reversal for judicial conduct requires showing jurors impressed by judge’s partiality)
United States v. Filani, 74 F.3d 378 (2d Cir. 1996) (court may question witnesses without becoming advocate)
United States v. Prado, 815 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2016) (plain error standard when no objection made at trial)
United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (elements of plain-error test)
United States v. Bejasa, 904 F.2d 137 (2d Cir. 1990) (instructions on judge’s lack of view on credibility)
United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
United States v. White, 972 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992) (threshold inquiry whether newly discovered evidence proves perjury)