Opinion ID: 194928
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Questions Asked of Cassiere Regarding Professional Standards

Text: 70 Cassiere argues that the government held him to a higher standard of conduct because he is an attorney, based on the following colloquy between the prosecutor and Cassiere: 71 Q. And in addition to being aware of the responsibilities as a closing attorney, sir, you as an attorney have certain responsibilities in conjunction with representing anybody, right? 72 A. Yes. 73 Q. And those duties and responsibilities are set forth in such things as a canon of ethics, are they not? 74 Cassiere objected and, after a sidebar conference, the court overruled the objection and explained: 75 I'm going to be very express [in my charge] that sloppy or careless work is not criminal. It may be malpractice, but it's not criminal. But I've decided ... that the failure to make a disclosure of material fact when under a duty to make a disclosure which duty is known to the individual with a specific intent to defraud by failing to make the disclosure constitutes a violation of the statute. The questioning continued: 76 Q. You're aware of the canons of ethics governing attorneys? 77 A. I am. 78 Q. And the disciplinary rules? 79 A. I am. 80 Q. And I gather you were also a former prosecutor? 81 A. I was. 82 Q. You're aware of the criminal laws? 83 MR. O'BRIEN: Objection, your honor. 84 THE COURT: No. overruled. 85 A. I'm not aware of all the criminal laws. I'm aware of the criminal laws that I enforced. 86 Q. You're aware of, you were aware in June of 1990 of these things as well, I gather? 87 A. I don't know what you mean by these things. 88 Q. The canons of ethics? 89 A. Yes. 90 Q, The disciplinary rules? 91 A. Yes. 92 Q. And you recognized that as an attorney you were under certain obligations? 93 A. Under certain obligations, yes. 94 Q. Those obligations included, included a responsibility to act truthfully? 95 A. Uh-huh. 96 Q. And honestly? 97 A. Correct. 98 Q. And disclose certain information? 99 A. I don't know what you mean by disclose certain information. 100 The court then sustained an objection and the prosecutor moved on. 101 To comprehend Cassiere's role in this scheme, it was important for the jury to understand how Cassiere and others viewed his duties as a closing attorney and whether he believed he had violated those duties. These facts were important for the jury in determining whether his participation in the scheme to defraud his clients, the lending institutions, was intentional and knowing. The district court has discretion to determine the scope of cross-examination, United States v. Tracey, 675 F.2d 433, 437 (1st Cir.1982), and did not abuse its discretion in allowing the preceding colloquy.