Page 4 - Lessons Learned from Getting to Not Guilty_FORTHEDEFENSE_vol4_issue4_2019
P. 4

in the indictment.  In light of BDO’s admissions, the    not refute in light of the deposition testimony,
                          7
        Court granted us permission to issue subpoenas           was that he had never known Denis Field to do
        seeking the withheld material on the ground that         anything that was not in the best interest of BDO.
        the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client         That was certainly a far cry from the government’s
        privilege applied. The material produced by the          depiction of Mr. Field as the consummate fraudster.
        law firms, some of which arrived in the midst of            In the end, we were able to hammer home to
        trial, proved to be quite valuable and opened up         the jury all of the evidence that supported Mr.
        important lines of cross-examination. For instance,      Field’s good faith belief in the legality of the tax
        at the first trial, BDO’s prior General Counsel (the     shelters and his lack of day to day involvement in
        “GC”) testified that Mr. Field had forbidden him         the tax shelter business, which he had delegated
        from getting involved in any of the company’s            to the people who ended up as the government’s
        tax shelter matters, suggesting that Mr. Field was       cooperating witnesses. The jury, which had been
        trying to hide the shelter’s illegality from BDO’s       incredibly attentive during the eight-week trial,
        highest legal officer. After he gave the same            embraced Mr. Field’s good faith defense, acquitting
        testimony at the re-trial, we impeached the GC           him on all counts in the indictment.
        with the detailed billing records of outside counsel,       While every case is different, there is one
        which clearly showed that he had been involved in        constant that it behooves trial counsel to fully
        numerous phone calls and meetings with the prior         embrace:  the client is the closest to the facts and
        GC relating to specific tax shelter matters over the     has valuable information that, if listened to with
        life of the alleged conspiracy.   From that, we could    an open mind and corroborated sufficiently, may
        argue that nothing, in fact, had been hidden from        very well provide the key to a positive outcome.
        him.                                                     It takes a tremendous amount of work, devotion,
           A trial subpoena issued to that same witness,         imagination, and focus to develop a robust
        BDO’s prior GC, netted a document that was key to        defense to what almost always seem like iron-clad
        our defense:  the witness’s deposition testimony in      criminal charges, but we hope that these three
        a civil lawsuit brought by BDO against an outside        examples from our experience—two acquittals,
        law firm, which the government had not produced          and one dismissal of the indictment before trial—
        as Jencks Act material. When that testimony was          will provide some guidance and hope to defense
        produced to us by the witness, we learned that,          counsel preparing to take on the awesome
        several months after the first trial, the witness had    responsibility of representing a client at trial.          PANTONE
        said several things under oath at a deposition that                                                                2955C              7406C
                                                                                                                            CMYK
        were exculpatory of Mr. Field, which we were able                                                                 90/78/39/30       9/22/91/0
        to use to great effect in cross-examination. The key          Click here to view and/or print the                   RGB
        testimony we elicited, and that the witness could             full notes section for this article.                22/58/92       234/194/56
                                                                                                                           HEXIDECIMAL
                                                                                                                          #153A5B          #EAC137
        About the Authors



                                Sharon L. McCarthy and Jay Nanavati are partners at
                                Kostelanetz & Fink, LLP. Ms. McCarthy is based in the Firm’s
                                New York City office, and Mr. Nanavati is based in Washington,
                                D.C. They each previously worked as government attorneys,
                                Ms. McCarthy as an Assistant United States Attorney in the
                                Southern District of New York, where she was Deputy Chief of
                                the Criminal Division and Chief of the Violent Crimes Unit, and
                                Mr. Nanavati first as an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney for
                                Fairfax, Virginia, and then as a trial attorney and supervisor in
           the Tax Division of the United States Department of Justice.  The named clients have given the authors
           permission to use their names and cases.

                                Share this article



                                                                               Vol. 4, Issue 4     For The Defense     41
                                                                                             l
   1   2   3   4