WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE AGAINST PAUL?
At
this hearing prosecutors filed an 18 page detention request by
special agent Michael Smith of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) who
certified among other things, that Bergrin should not be released on
bail because there is substantial evidence that he had overseas
assets in places such as the Dominican Republic and Japan, that he had 4 different passports, and that he told an informant to kill a
witness.
However,
upon cross examination by Bergrin’s then attorney, Gerald Shargel,
Smith incredibly was not able to corroborate any of the statements
that he was questioned about in his certification. When asked if he
had seen any proof that Bergrin had false passports, he said no. When
asked if knew any of the details about the case in which Bergrin was
alleged to have tried to have a witnessed killed, he said no. When
asked if he had any proof that Bergrin had assets overseas, he said
no. When asked about his statements that Bergrin was a danger to
society, he was forced to admit that he had not reviewed any
documents substantiating this. DEA Smith stated that he relied
heavily on what he was told by an FBI agent, who did not provide any
proof of these allegations, but was instead relying heavily on the
statements of a confidential informant.
Judge
Madeleine Arleo questioned the defense about transcripts of wiretaps
that was submitted by the prosecution which are reported to have
Bergrin telling the informant to kill a witness. Defense Attorney
Shargel replied that he could not adequately comment on that because
he was only presented with an excerpt and did not have the full
recordings in their totality and pointed out that neither did the
judge. He reminded the judge that one can not adequately make an
assessment on what was reported in those transcripts without having
complete access to the wiretapped recordings in their entirety. He
emphasized that he wants those complete recordings but that the
prosecution has yet to provide him with that. He recommended that
instead of keeping Bergrin behind bars, that he should be subjected
to a strict house arrest with 24 electronic ankle surveillance
device.
On May 29, 2009, the
judge denied the request for bail and Paul was immediately put in
solitary confinement, where he stayed in a windowless cell for
approximately nine months. As of July 2011, he has been put back in solitary confinement.
And
now, after also spending two years in prison, prosecutors have cut
deals with three of Paul's co-defendants, Thomas Moran, a former law
partner to Paul, Vincent Esteves, a reported drug king pin, and
Yoland Jauregui.
EXCERPTS
FROM THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PROSECUTOR'S ONLY WITNESS DURING
THE BAIL HEARING
Below
are excerpts of the transcripts from the cross examination of DEA
Michael Smith. ("Q" represents Bergrin's then defense
attorney, Gerald Shargel, and "A" represents Agent
Smith). Part I deals with accusations of Bergrin having
false passports and international assets and Part II deals with the
accusations involving murder.
In
his certification of support for the detention of Paul, Smith
certifies under penalty of perjury that he is a DEA Agent who was
tasked with assisting in the investigation. In paragraph
26 on page 14, he states that Bergrin has significant assets
domestically and internationally, that he has multiple false
passports and that he has significant contacts in other countries,
including the Dominican Republic, Japan, and Costa Rica.
On page 4 of the certification he accuses Paul of being involved in
plots pertaining to witness tampering and murdering federal
informants.
But
under cross examination at the bail hearing, Smith had to concede
that he had no personal knowledge of any of this and that he was
relying on second hand information from FBI agents and prosecutors
who received the bulk of their information from seemingly
uncorroborated statements from a confidential informant.
Part I
BY
MR. SHARGEL:
Q.
Agent Smith, looking at Government Exhibit 6A -A.
Yes,
sir.
Q.
That consists of financial records; correct? I'll
strike
financial records and say business documents. If you
have
a better description, I'll take it.
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Business documents?
A.
Better documents, yes, sir.
Q.
And when did you receive those business documents, as
best
you can recall, approximately?
A.
Last night, sir.
Q.
Did you saw those for the first time last night?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And there's information contained within your
certification
relating to the companies, or some of the
companies
that are referred to in those documents; correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And that information was conveyed to you when?
A.
It was conveyed to me by SA Shawn Brocos from the
Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
Q.
And the information that's contained in your
certification
came from that special agent of the FBI?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And so you have no personal knowledge, direct personal
knowledge
of the information that is contained in your
certification?
A.
Based on secondhand information from her, yes, sir.
Q.
It's all secondhand information; right?
A.
Yes, sir, that's correct.
Q.
Did you take any investigative -- by the way -- strike
that
--
When
did you receive this information, if we don't have
that
already?
A.
The -- this particular package in front of me, sir?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Again, last night.
Q.
No, but the information, the underlying information from
the
special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Her
last name, again?
A.
Brocos.
Q.
Brocos?
A.
Yes, sir
Q.
When did Agent Brocos furnish this information to you?
A.
The morning before I signed the certification.
Q.
And the certification, for the record, is signed when
that?
You may look at the last page.
A.
20th, sir.
Q.
20th of -- of May?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
This year? Just -A.
2009.
Q.
-- a week or so ago?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Between May the 20th, 2009, and today, have you taken
any
steps to do further investigation on these documents?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
So let me ask you this, if I may, Agent. Turning to
page
15 of the certification -- actually just -- so for the
sake
of the record, page 14, to which we referred before, in
paragraph
27 sets out what you describe as Mr. Bergrin's
identified
assets; right?
A.
Yes, sir, paragraph 27.
Q.
Did you intend that to be an exclusive list?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
In other words, to the exclusion of any other asset?
A.
No, sir, I don't believe so.
Q.
You say on the next page in your sworn certification --
actually
I don't know if it's sworn, but it's a
certification,
on paragraph 28, that although Bergrin has
substantial
identifiable assets, such as those listed above,
there's
evidence indicating that he has significantly larger
assets
that have been not been identified because they are
either
overseas or hidden by Bergrin.
Do
you see that?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
So as you sit here now, do you have any direct personal
knowledge,
whatever, as to any hidden asset of Mr. Bergrin in
an
offshore account?
A.
I personally do not, direct personal knowledge, no, sir.
Q.
And based on the information that you received from
Special
Agent Brocos of the FBI, do you have a single
document
showing a bank account overseas held by Mr. Bergrin?
A.
Not that I'm aware of, sir.
Q.
Do you have, as you sit here now, from whatever source,
either
your own personal knowledge or information supplied by
Agent
Brocos, any asset [sic] held by Mr. Bergrin in a
foreign
country?
A.
Not that I'm personally aware, sir. You'd have to ask
Agent
Brocos.
Q.
Well, did you ever ask Agent Brocos?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Sir, you say in your certification that -- that
actually
I don't know if it's sworn, but it's a
certification,
on paragraph 28, that although Bergrin has
substantial
identifiable assets, such as those listed above,
there's
evidence indicating that he has significantly larger
assets
that have been not been identified because they are
either
overseas or hidden by Bergrin.
Do
you see that?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
So as you sit here now, do you have any direct personal
knowledge,
whatever, as to any hidden asset of Mr. Bergrin in
an
offshore account?
A.
I personally do not, direct personal knowledge, no, sir.
Q.
And based on the information that you received from
Special
Agent Brocos of the FBI, do you have a single
document
showing a bank account overseas held by Mr. Bergrin?
A.
Not that I'm aware of, sir.
Q.
Do you have, as you sit here now, from whatever source,
either
your own personal knowledge or information supplied by
Agent
Brocos, any asset [sic] held by Mr. Bergrin in a
foreign
country?
A.
Not that I'm personally aware, sir. You'd have to ask
Agent
Brocos.
Q.
Well, did you ever ask Agent Brocos?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Sir, you say in your certification that -- that
Mr.
Bergrin has assets, larger assets that are overseas or
hidden
by him. Do you of your own personal knowledge, know
of
any asset large or small that is hidden by Mr. Bergrin?
A.
Not of my own personal knowledge, no, sir.
Q.
And did Ms. -- and did Ms. Brocos tell you of any
significant
or even insignificant asset hidden by
Mr.
Bergrin?
A.
Based on information that was provided to her from a
confidential
informant, she said that they believed that
there
were assets overseas that belonged to Mr. Bergrin.
Q.
But Agent Smith, in your certification, you say that
Bergrin
has substantial identifiable assets, and then there's
evidence
indicating that he has significantly large assets
that
have not been identified because they are either
overseas
or hidden by Bergrin.
Is
it your testimony that Agent Brocos has no -- to your
knowledge,
has no personal knowledge of this matter?
A.
No, it's not my testimony, no, sir.
Q.
The investigation, you go on to say, has revealed that
Bergrin
often advised clients on methods of hiding illegal
proceeds
that they earned.
Where
did you get that information?
A.
Again, from Agent Brocos.
Q.
You say that there is evidence that Bergrin has hidden
significant
assets which are also at his disposal to assist
Mr.
Bergrin has assets, larger assets that are overseas or
hidden
by him. Do you of your own personal knowledge, know
of
any asset large or small that is hidden by Mr. Bergrin?
A.
Not of my own personal knowledge, no, sir.
Q.
And did Ms. -- and did Ms. Brocos tell you of any
significant
or even insignificant asset hidden by
Mr.
Bergrin?
A.
Based on information that was provided to her from a
confidential
informant, she said that they believed that
there
were assets overseas that belonged to Mr. Bergrin.
Q.
But Agent Smith, in your certification, you say that
Bergrin
has substantial identifiable assets, and then there's
evidence
indicating that he has significantly large assets
that
have not been identified because they are either
overseas
or hidden by Bergrin.
Is
it your testimony that Agent Brocos has no -- to your
knowledge,
has no personal knowledge of this matter?
A.
No, it's not my testimony, no, sir.
Q.
The investigation, you go on to say, has revealed that
Bergrin
often advised clients on methods of hiding illegal
proceeds
that they earned.
Where
did you get that information?
A.
Again, from Agent Brocos.
Q.
You say that there is evidence that Bergrin has hidden
significant
assets which are also at his disposal to assist
steps
were taken by Agent Brocos to determine whether this
was
true, that Mr. Bergrin had assets?
A.
I do not, sir.
Q.
Paragraph 29. There's also evidence that Bergrin has
significant
assets hidden in bank accounts overseas.
Have
you, sir, seen a single bank record showing that
Mr.
Bergrin has $25 overseas. Have you seen that?
A.
I personally have not, no, sir.
Q.
And did Agent Brocos tell you that she had taken steps
to
clarify or ascertain whether it was accurate that there
were
significant assets hidden in bank accounts overseas?
A.
Again, conversations with her confidential informant.
That
was the information that was relayed to her.
Q.
Confidential Informant Number 4, as you identify the
person
or don't identify the person in paragraph 29, has -has
reported
that Mr. Bergrin controls bank accounts in Japan
and
the Dominican Republic containing substantial sums of
money.
Do
you see that?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Do you know the last time that Mr. Bergrin was in the
Dominican
Republic?
A.
I do not, sir.
Q.
Did you ask Agent Brocos whether she was able to
determine
when Mr. Bergrin was in the Dominican Republic?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Did you ask Agent Brocos if she had any evidence of any
bank
account owned or controlled by Paul Bergrin in -- in
Japan
or the Dominican Republic?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Do you know the last time that Mr. Bergrin was in Japan?
A.
No, sir, I do not.
Q.
Do you know, as you sit here now, whether from your own
knowledge
or from -- from knowledge that was provided or
information
that was provided by Agent Brocos, do you know
whether
Mr. Bergrin has a quarter in a bank account in Japan?
A.
Again, sir, just based on the information he shared with
me
from her confidential source.
. . .
PART II
Q.
Was there information in here that you learned from the
prosecutors?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
On what basis could you certify the information learned
by
the prosecutors, if you know? I mean, why would you do
that?
A.
I'm sorry? Can you -Q.
Why
would you certify information that was just given to
you
by the prosecutors?
A.
Why would I certify it?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Based on information that was provided to them in order
that
they originally drafted the documents.
Q.
Do you know why you were chosen as the person to
certify?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Why?
A.
Because I'm not deeply involved in the investigation as
a
lead investigator. I'm a summary witness.
Q.
I see.
So
the information that's set forth here with regard to
the
-- to the person who's referred to here at KDM or Kemo,
do
you know who that is; correct?
A.
Kemo, yeah, that's Deshawn McCray.
Q.
And with regard to that, you have no personal knowledge
Q.
Was there information in here that you learned from the
prosecutors?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
On what basis could you certify the information learned
by
the prosecutors, if you know? I mean, why would you do
that?
A.
I'm sorry? Can you -Q.
Why
would you certify information that was just given to
you
by the prosecutors?
A.
Why would I certify it?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Based on information that was provided to them in order
that
they originally drafted the documents.
Q.
Do you know why you were chosen as the person to
certify?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Why?
A.
Because I'm not deeply involved in the investigation as
a
lead investigator. I'm a summary witness.
Q.
I see.
So
the information that's set forth here with regard to
the
-- to the person who's referred to here at KDM or Kemo,
do
you know who that is; correct?
A.
Kemo, yeah, that's Deshawn McCray.
Q.
And with regard to that, you have no personal knowledge
of
any of this information; correct?
A.
Again, just conversations with FBI Brocos in this case.
Q.
What you heard from others; right?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Did you have any discussion with the agent as to the -and
I
ask this question within the meaning of Subsection (g),
the
weight or strength of the prosecution's case?
A.
No, sir, I didn't ask that specifically.
Q.
Do you have any information of your own direct personal
knowledge
to offer on that issue?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
And going on to page 5 of the subsection, the plot to
kill
witnesses against Vicente Esteves?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Do you see that?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
This again -- and I don't want to labor it -- is the
same
kind of source: conversations with others?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Did you ever receive any information about the progress
of
this investigation prior to signing the certification?
A.
Just in some general conversations with SA Ivanoshevitz,
but,
no, I was not directly involved in the investigation
leading
up to this, sir.
Q.
Now, going on to page 8.
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Where the caption is "Other Evidence of Witness
Tampering,
Including Murder Plots." Do you see that?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And you go on to set forth other instances where
Mr.
Bergrin, according to your certification, urged his
clients
to kill witnesses.
Do
you see that on the top of page 9?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
You go on to say in paragraph 17, that CI4, and we
discussed
and that's the same CI4 on the risk of flight;
correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And in this paragraph, again, there is nothing to
suggest
that CI4 is a reliable informant; correct?
A.
That verbiage is not in there, no, sir.
Q.
There's no other verbiage either, is there, to suggest
to
the -- to the magistrate judge that this is a reliable
informant;
correct?
A.
Not that I'm aware, no, sir.
Q.
Because sometimes different verbiage is chosen, such as
the
prior history of the informant and his or her success in
providing
information to federal authorities; right?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
But it doesn't appear in any kind of verbiage in this
paragraph;
correct?
A.
No, sir, it's not there.
Q.
So this paragraph says that CI4 was present when Bergrin
told
one of Bergrin's clients to kill a person that Bergrin
and
that client believed was cooperating with law enforcement
in
a criminal case against that client.
I
ask you, sir, what's the name of the person who was
going
to be killed?
A.
I don't know, sir.
Q.
What's the name of the case?
A.
I don't know if it's case-specific. I don't believe it
is,
sir.
Q.
In what -- well, you make it appear that it's specific.
CI4
was present when Bergrin told one of Bergrin -- one of
Bergrin's
clients to kill a person that Bergrin and that
client
believed was cooperating with law enforcement in a
criminal
case against that client.
What
criminal case?
A.
I'm not aware of a criminal case, sir.
Q.
What year did it take place?
A.
Don't know, sir.
Q.
Which jurisdiction did it take place in?
A.
Don't know, sir.
Q.
Who was prosecuting the case?
MR.
GAY: Your Honor, objection.
THE
COURT: I'm going to allow it.
BY
MR. SHARGEL:
Q.
Who was prosecuting the case?
A.
I don't know, sir.
Q.
CI4 has also been present on other occasions when
Bergrin
spoke about having witnesses killed for other clients
whom
Bergrin represented on criminal cases.
Do
you see that?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
When were those occasions?
A.
I do not know, sir.
Q.
What cases were involved?
A.
Again, I do not know.
Q.
What jurisdiction or what prosecutor?
A.
I don't know, sir.
Q.
And going on -- going on: In addition to the murder and
other
plots to kill witnesses set forth above, there are
additional
examples of cases in which clients represented by
Bergrin
thwarted or attempted to thwart criminal prosecution
after
witnesses against them were murdered.
And
you go on to give examples; right?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Now, you reviewed your certification in anticipation of
this
testimony; right?
A.
I did, sir.
Q.
And you had a copy that made certain notes on; right?
A.
I did, sir.
Q.
And I'm going to show you what's been marked as PB3, PB3
in
evidence.
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Do you recognize that as the copy that you used to
prepare
your testimony here this afternoon and make notes on?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
So could you turn -- and there's a yellow Post-it, one
of
about three yellow Post-its on the right, to page 9,
paragraph
18.
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And on that exhibit, there's certain handwriting; right?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And the handwriting, at least on my copy, is a little
chopped
off on the left side; right?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
But you wrote it, and if you would -- you probably wrote
it
in the last couple of days; right?
A.
Last night, sir.
Q.
Last night after you learned that I was going to call
you
as a witness today; right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you wrote it and so you know what you wrote, cut off
or
not; right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Please tell the Court what is that you wrote.
A.
Said the -- basically the blow [phonetic] information
from
SA Shawn Brocos is relevant to conversations she had
with
APs only, and it's secondhand knowledge that she
received
from the APs.
Q.
What's APs?
A.
Assistant prosecutor, sir.
Q.
Wait a minute, you mean assistant prosecutors, like the
two
prosecutors here?
A.
No, at the state level, sir, regarding the blow list of
cases.
Q.
How many different APs, assistant prosecutors?
A.
I believe -- I don't know the exact amounts, but I think
that
the cases referred to are Essex and one Monmouth, sir.
Q.
And where did those assistant prosecutors get the
information?
A.
From actually working the case, sir.
Q.
Well, what's "working the case" mean? From sources?
A.
From their investigation.
Q.
And who provided the information?
A.
I don't know, sir.
Q.
Were they reliable people?
A.
I do not know that, sir.
Q.
Were they liars and backbiters and backsliders, or do
A.
Yes.
Q.
Please tell the Court what is that you wrote.
A.
Said the -- basically the blow [phonetic] information
from
SA Shawn Brocos is relevant to conversations she had
with
APs only, and it's secondhand knowledge that she
received
from the APs.
Q.
What's APs?
A.
Assistant prosecutor, sir.
Q.
Wait a minute, you mean assistant prosecutors, like the
two
prosecutors here?
A.
No, at the state level, sir, regarding the blow list of
cases.
Q.
How many different APs, assistant prosecutors?
A.
I believe -- I don't know the exact amounts, but I think
that
the cases referred to are Essex and one Monmouth, sir.
Q.
And where did those assistant prosecutors get the
information?
A.
From actually working the case, sir.
Q.
Well, what's "working the case" mean? From sources?
A.
From their investigation.
Q.
And who provided the information?
A.
I don't know, sir.
Q.
Were they reliable people?
A.
I do not know that, sir.
Q.
Were they liars and backbiters and backsliders, or do
representing
Alquan Loyal, I do not know, sir.
Q.
Well, did Agent Brocos tell you what he did other than
represent
a client within -- within the purview of the Sixth
Amendment
to the Constitution?
A.
No, sir. Agent Brocos shared with me that she only
spoke
to the prosecutors, and she did not expand the scope of
her
investigation in fear of compromising the investigation.
Q.
You don't know how many layers of hearsay even establish
this;
correct?
A.
No, sir, I do not.
Q.
And you don't have a scintilla of evidence that suggests
that
Mr. Bergrin did anything wrong just representing him.
Right?
A.
In this particular case, no, sir.
Q.
Let's talk about the next particular case, State v.
Malik
Howard. Actually, was there a change or correction
with
respect to who that was, or no?
A.
I think that's a follow-on case you're referring to,
sir.
Q.
It's State v. -- it's the Malik Howard, Bergrin
represented
Howard on murder charges in Essex County.
Nothing
wrong with that; right?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And Howard had been charged with the murder of CJ and
the
aggravated assault of another male victim SL, CJ's
girlfriend.
I'm sorry. Let me read it with the correct
emphasis.
SL,
CJ's girlfriend identified Howard as the shooter.
The
male victim who was shot in the foot as Howard was
shooting
at CJ also identified Howard as the shooter. Howard
originally
absconded, but later surrendered himself to
Bergrin
two days after SL was murdered. At trial Bergrin
claimed
that since SL was dead, there were no witnesses to
the
murder.
What
did Mr. Bergrin do in connection with that murder?
A.
Again, he represented the defendant, sir.
Q.
Nothing wrong with that, is there?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
And making an argument to a jury that since SL was dead,
there
were no witnesses to the murder, nothing wrong with
that,
either; right?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
In State v. Tyleek Baker, et al., Bergrin represented
Tyleek
Baker on murder charges in Ocean County Superior
Court.
James Russell and Jamal Scott were charged along with
Tyleek
Baker in that case. Days before testimony was to
commence
in that case, persons entered a residence where the
main
witness against Tyleek Baker was staying and murdered
another
resident of that house, AB, who was the mother of the
main
witness's girlfriend. Bergrin's investigator, GB, had
been in AB's house the day before in an attempt to interview
the witness.
Sir, may I ask you this: Is it not common or proper,
both, for an investigator to interview witnesses in
connection with defending a case?
A. I'm not a defense attorney, sir. I don't know the
common practices.
Q. Sorry?
A. I said, not being from -- not being a defense attorney
nor an attorney, I don't know your common practices.
Q. Based on your seven years of experience -A.
From a law enforcement perspective, yes, absolutely.
Q. From a law enforcement perspective, you know that a
defense lawyer is duty-bound to investigate the case under
the canons of ethics; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Tyleek Baker's codefendants James Russell and Jamal
Scott were subsequently charged with the October 14th, 2008,
murder of AB.
See that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that's the end of the description of State v. Tyleek
Baker; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So I ask you, sir, going back to paragraph 18: In
addition to the murders and other plots to kill witnesses set
forth above, there are additional examples of cases in which
clients represented by Bergrin were thwarted or attempted to
thwart criminal prosecution after witnesses against them were
murdered.
I ask you, sir, with regard to the Tyleek Baker case,
what did Mr. Bergrin do that was improper?
A. Again, he just represented the client, sir.
Q. You go on, paragraph 19, to certify for the Court that
eyewitnesss have informed law enforcement that on numerous
separate occasions, Bergrin counseled persons who were
government witnesses or persons whom Bergrin intended to call
as witnesses to provide testimony at trial falsely
exculpating Bergrin's clients.
Where is this information coming from?
A. Again, it's coming from conversations that SA Brocos has
had with the assistant prosecutors, from those various -Q.
And once again, you don't know how many layers of
hearsay; correct?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. And once again, you know nothing about reliability;
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
. . .
Q.
This -- the last -- the last sentence here on page and I'm getting to
the end, it's --
MALE
SPEAKER: C.
BY
MR. SHARGEL:
Q.
Yeah, same paragraph C. It's at the top of page 13Your Honor.
The
witness who was facing unrelated criminal charges
was
told that if he or she changed his or her testimony
regarding
the murder, then Bergrin would handle the witnessongoing criminal
case for free.
Told
by who? The witness was told. Told by who?
A.
I don't know, sir.
Q.
And this again, is that secondhand knowledge -A.
It
is, sir.
Q.
-- state prosecutors?
And
with the State v. Raheem Clark, same thing?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And just going on, 23, finally an eyewitness has told
law
enforcement that based upon on conversations with
Bergrin,
the eyewitness learned that Bergrin has bribed
jurors
in an effort to win cases.
Do
you see that?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Where did you get that from?
A.
Again, that's information that SA Brocos had shared with
me,
secondhand knowledge.
Q.
Do you -- do you know -- do you know of your own
personal
knowledge of a single instance where Paul Bergrin
did
anything improper -A.
Personally
no.
Q.
-- let alone, bribe?
A.
Personally no, sir.
Q.
So you don't know persons making this allegation, you
don't
know when this is supposed to have occurred; correct?
A.
Correct, sir.
Q.
You don't know where it's supposed to have occurred;
correct?
A.
Correct, sir.
|
