Bruno Jury Wraps Up For Day Without Verdict

4

The jury in the trial of former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno failed to reach a verdict during the second day of deliberations Monday, the first since taking a five-day break for the Thanksgiving holiday.

Jurors will return to the James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday to resume deliberations, reports Gannett’s Jon Campbell.

Bruno is charged with eight counts of federal mail and wire fraud. The prosecution alleges Bruno used his consulting business as a way to use his political power for personal gain, robbing his constituents of “honest services.”

Monday opened with a reading of testimony by former Senate lawyer Francis Gluchowski, who recalled a telephone conversation he had with then Chief Senate Counsel Kenneth Riddett about whether or not Bruno’s dealings with Connecticut-based company Wright Investors’ Services had to be reviewed by the Legislature Ethics Committee. Bruno allegedly used his political connections to convince labor unions to invest in Wright with their pensions.

In his testimony, Gluchowski said he and Riddett agreed that Bruno ‘s work with Wright did not have to be reviewed.

Shortly after 2 p.m., the jury returned to the courtroom to hear the complete testimony of Mary-Louise Mallick, the former secretary of the Senate Finance Committee.

During her time on the witness stand, Mallick discussed a review she conducted of Evident Technologies, a start-up nanoscience company partially funded by Albany-area businessman Jared Abbruzzese that had applied for state grants.

Mallick, who has a master’s degree in bio-ethics and economics, testified that Bruno had sent her out to the company’s property to see if Evident was worthy of the grant because of her knowledge in the field. She gave a positive recommendation, and the company was eventually awarded two $250,000 grants through Bruno.

“I think it’s apparent by that read-back that there was a process, a business-like, professional process in the Senate that I established,”Bruno said outside of the courthouse. “I followed it in every way and everything that I did, without exception.”

Share.

About Author

4 Comments

  1. this appears to be a good sign for bruno….if the jury
    doesn’t think he stole money but simply used his senate
    office as a place to introduce private clients..they may
    have a problem convicting an 80 year old man…..these are
    not clear cut criminal issues….yes he is using and maybe
    abusing his office…but …..is he stealing from the taxpayers

  2. If “These are not clear cut criminal issues” it is because Bruno and his ilk in politics have done and continue to do all in their power to make certain that these are not clear cut criminal issues – FOR THEM! This is the kind of wishy-washy, Neville Chamberlain logic that has brought us to this abyss.

  3. It may look and smell dirty but at the end of the day it is all legal. Power is power and some use it for their constituents, others use it for their friends and some use it for themselves. If the positions held have vague rules and an introduction is made from a high level person stating “I want you to talk to someone, I think you two could work together well”. There is nothing illegal about that, but it is often assumed that the meeting is not an introduction but a personal request to retain or hire someone. The only way it could be illegal if money was transferred amongst the people involved and Bruno was paid off. I would assume Bruno is smarter then that.