Opinion ID: 4236764
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The trial and verdicts

Text: At trial, the district court ruled that it would not allow Bradley to testify as an expert witness. The court concluded that the opinions contained in Bradley’s expert report amounted to nothing more than his opinion that “the jury should find these folks not guilty,” which the court found inadmissible. The district court did, however, allow the defense to proffer Bradley’s testimony outside the jury’s presence to determine his acceptability as a lay witness. During the proffer, Bradley stated that he knew both Holland and Rosenfeld but had not participated in any of the transactions at issue in this case. Rosenfeld’s attorney argued that Bradley’s experience provided him the personal knowledge required for admission as a lay witness, stating as follows: “The purpose for Mr. Bradley is … to explain how the DTC operates because he actually knows. … He’s not rendering an opinion if he likes the way it operates. He’s not rendering an opinion if people enjoy the way it operates. He’s going to explain how it actually operates.”3 The district court halted Bradley’s initial proffer due to the jury’s arrival. When the proceedings resumed, Rosenfeld’s attorney decided to make the proffer himself rather than have Bradley continue to testify. During this proffer, Rosenfeld’s 3 The DTC referenced by Rosenfeld’s attorney is the Depository Trust Company, the organization that clears financial transactions occurring in the United States. 6 Case: 15-14081 Date Filed: 01/16/2018 Page: 7 of 25 counsel contended that Bradley could provide context by speaking about his personal experience in investment banking and in the “nontraditional side of investment, funding, and banking,” where Bradley would testify leased instruments are indeed used. The district court ruled that Bradley’s proffered testimony was “not fact testimony,” but rather “opinion testimony,” rendering Bradley inadmissible as a lay witness. For purposes of the record, Holland’s attorney then stated Holland would “adopt” Rosenfeld’s positions and “submit[ted] that we would be able to call Bradley as a fact witness or an expert witness.” The district court restated its ruling that Bradley would not be allowed to testify. The government proffered William Kerr as an expert witness on the types of transactions typically occurring in the financial world. Rosenfeld renewed the objection that he had made pre-trial, arguing that Kerr was unqualified to testify as an expert on “non-traditional financial transactions”—a euphemism for the transactions at issue here—and that Kerr’s testimony would unreliably contradict the testimony of other witnesses. Holland’s attorney joined Rosenfeld’s objection. The district court admitted Kerr’s testimony over Holland’s and Rosenfeld’s objections. Rosenfeld testified in his own defense. During his testimony, he made statements that became the basis of an obstruction-of-justice-based sentence enhancement, discussed below. Among other things, during direct examination, he 7 Case: 15-14081 Date Filed: 01/16/2018 Page: 8 of 25 claimed he had been “contacted by a Secret Service agent that was looking for expert witnesses.” On cross-examination, the government inquired as to the nature of Rosenfeld’s role as an expert witness. When asked where he testified as an expert, Rosenfeld could not clearly recall, but said he believed it was in the Eastern District of New York in Queens. When pressed further on the matter, Rosenfeld conceded that he did not testify in court, was not even in New York when the trial in question happened, and claimed that he only used the term “expert” on direct because he was answering questions about his industry in an interview with a federal prosecutor. At the close of the government’s case in chief, Holland and Rosenfeld each moved for judgment of acquittal, but their motions were denied. The motions were renewed before the case was submitted to the jury, and again denied. After a 12-day trial, a jury convicted Holland and Rosenfeld on all counts. The district court then held a forfeiture hearing, at which the government traced a $273,666.73 payment Rosenfeld made to pay off the lien on his house to the fraudulent transactions for which he had just been convicted, and argued that the house should therefore be subject to forfeiture. The jury returned a special verdict finding Rosenfeld’s house was property traceable to all four offenses of conviction. 8 Case: 15-14081 Date Filed: 01/16/2018 Page: 9 of 25