Breaking: Joe Bruno gets retrial; conviction vacated
Joe Bruno, who was born and raised in Glens Falls, will get a new trial following a decision today by the 2nd US Court of Appeals in Manhattan.
The once-powerful former Senate Majority Leader was convicted in 2009 of improperly concealing a deal with a business consultant.
According to the Associated Press, prosecutors may use the new trial to introduce evidence of further charges, including allegations that he “received $280,000 in return for taking official actions on behalf of the business associate.”
Bruno has maintained his ties to the North Country. After his retirement from the Senate, Bruno worked for CMA Consulting, baed in Latham, which is headed by Kay Stafford, widow of former North Country state Senator Ron Stafford.
It’s unclear whether a retrial will once again involve current state Senator Betty Little.
In 2009, Sen. Little was called to testify about Bruno’s decision to grant more than $250,000 in job training money to a union in her district.
Here’s an account of that testimony from the New York Times:
Looking sheepish, Ms. Little confessed that…no one at the union had ever asked her for the two grants, which were for $100,000 in 2006 and $150,000 in 2007. Instead, aides to Mr. Bruno told her that the senator was interested in dispensing the grant and offered to bring her on as a co-sponsor.
Though a public disclosure form for the first grant is dated April 2006, the grant does not appear to have actually been executed until December — some months after Local 773 invested $4 million of pension money with Wright [a firm that Bruno worked for].
And though Mr. Bruno and Ms. Little were both listed as sponsors of the grant, only Ms. Little signed the disclosure form. Ms. Little was asked when, exactly, she signed it. “I don’t know,” she said.
Do you know if it was backdated? “No, I don’t,” she replied.
And why didn’t Mr. Bruno sign it? “I don’t know,” she repeated.
Tags: criminal justice, politics
I know nothing and lest I be judged, I’m not going to judge Joe.
But I will speak to the idea of another trial.
Joe is old and the only value I see to another trial is some prosecutor trying to make a name by spending tax payer dollars.
The value in another trial is to hold a powerful person accountable for the actions he took as a representative of the people. Just because somebody gets old doesn’t mean he should get a free pass on justice.
And to erase the Bruno moniker off all public facilities and signs which were nothing but shameless promotion of a corrupt culture of power and money.
That culture still exists in Albany, Bruno was just one placeholder in a series of many before him, those there now and those to come next.
As long as people can grow very wealthy simply by being a state representative you have a problem.
And the solution to the problem is to prosecute corruption. Break the cycle.
Agreed
No way, Joe Bruno Stadium is awesome. He must therefore be innocent.
If it costs the greedy, corrupt you know what a few hundred grand more in legal fees, then I’m all for another trial. He needs to be made an example of yet again. Especially if it’ll make future politicians think twice about engaging in behavior that is a conflict of interest and morally wrong. I won’t hold my breath too long, but there’s always hope.
As Knuckle and Mervel mentioned above, we’ve got to prosecute corruption. If nothing else maybe another trial will bring the issue of corruption in Albany back into the minds of the electorate just in time for next year’s election.
It bothers me though when we use the law to make “examples” of people, at its core it is unjust. The examples we “choose” are always then political, random and unfair. Think on a broader scale, Andy Fastow is still sitting in prison (the Enron Accountant), yet not one person has been sent to prison for the mortgage scam. Fastow was made an example and given a really harsh sentence, but the examples seem to be selective don’t they?
So really is Bruno any worse then Silver? How do we cherry pick a corrupt system? Yes we need to prosecute corruption I just think we need to be consistent and not make examples of people we don’t happen to like.