Opinion ID: 761704
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Serafini's Testimony

Text: 4 Turning to the substance of the government's appeal, we begin by laying out, in some detail, the relevant portions of Frank Serafini's testimony during his second appearance before the grand jury. That testimony began with various foundational matters, S.App. at 18-21, which included a denial by Serafini of being reimbursed for any political contributions. 9 The questioning then turned to Serafini's relationship with Empire. S.App. at 22-44. Next, government counsel inquired about the contribution Serafini had made to the Dole campaign, including a question about Serafini's motive for contributing. 10 Counsel also asked whether Michael Serafini (Frank's nephew) had solicited the contribution and whether any others at Empire had solicited contributions from the defendant. S.App. at 47-50. Counsel next attempted to determine when and how Frank Serafini became aware of similar contributions to the Dole campaign by other members of the Serafini family. 5 At this point, counsel focused his questions on a $2,000 check from Michael Serafini 11 to Frank Serafini, inquiring whether that $2,000 check was a reimbursement for Frank Serafini's campaign contribution. 12 When the defendant again denied being reimbursed, counsel asked if the fact that the check written to him was part of a series of checks--all written on the same day and all for either $1,000 or $2,000 to various people from whom Michael Serafini had solicited contributions--would prompt him to change his testimony about whether that $2,000 check he received was a reimbursement for his contribution. The defendant responded, No. In my mind it was not a reimbursement. 13 6 Counsel then inquired about checks from close relatives of Serafini to the Dole campaign and checks from Michael Serafini to those same persons. 14 After the defendant denied knowledge of many of the checks he was asked if, having been made aware of the existence of the checks, he still maintained that there was no connection between his contribution and the $2,000 check from Michael Serafini. When the defendant again denied any link, the disputed colloquy occurred: 7 Q: Is there any check that your received that reimbursed you other than that $2,000 check for your contribution. 8 A: No. 9 Q: is there another check that you are aware of that is connected to this investigation, to this Dole contribution, other than the $2,000? 10 A: Not other than what you have shown me today, no. 11 Q: Did you receive any other money, whether by cash, or check, or any other form from Michael at or around the time period you made your Dole contribution other than this $2,000 check? 12 A: I can't specifically remember, however, we transfer money back and forth quite often for different reasons and I can't honestly say that there wasn't some kind of transfer, I mean, we do it all of the time. 13 S.App. at 67. (The disputed answer, reprinted here italicized, along with the question that triggered it, was referred to by the District Court as statement 3, a convention that, for the sake of convenience and consistency, will be adopted here.) After the disputed colloquy, the defendant was shown a chart of checks written by Michael Serafini and asked if he could explain them. 15 At that point, the questioning turned to other issues. 14 The $2,000 check referred to by counsel in the challenged question was the check from Michael Serafini to Frank Serafini which, so the government believed, was to reimburse Frank Serafini for his $1,000 campaign contribution. At the time of this colloquy, government counsel apparently had no clear idea why the reimbursement check was for $2,000 rather than $1,000. According to the government, its counsel only later acquired information that Serafini's aide, Thomas Harrison, also contributed $1,000 to the Dole campaign and was reimbursed by Michael Serafini through Frank Serafini for doing so. Thus, according to the government, (a) the $2,000 check from Michael Serafini served to reimburse both Thomas Harrison and Frank Serafini, but (b) the government did not know this at the time Frank Serafini answered the challenged question. It is the government's contention that--contrary to the defendant's response (Not other than what you have shown me today, no.)--Frank was aware of two checks other than the $2,000 that were connected to this investigation, to this Dole contribution. One was a $1,000 check from Frank Serafini to Thomas Harrison, and the other was a $1,000 check from Thomas Harrison to the Dole campaign.