Opinion ID: 510217
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Borg and the Driesen Tape

Text: 219 Friedman's last claim of ineffective assistance arises out of a curious incident. One week before opening arguments at the trial, the government revealed to the district court and to Friedman that one of its witnesses, Dr. Jerome Driesen, had surreptitiously tape-recorded a meeting attended by Puccio and another attorney, Harold Borg, on June 3, 1986. Dreisen, who at the time of the June meeting was cooperating with federal authorities, engineered the recording with the assistance of the FBI. According to the government, the meeting had been arranged after Borg had offered to help Driesen obtain secret information about an investigation being conducted by a Queens County grand jury. According to Puccio, the meeting had been arranged because Puccio, who needed material with which to impeach Lindenauer, had been told that Driesen, a forensic psychiatrist and long-time friend (and accomplice) of Lindenauer, believed that Lindenauer was mentally imbalanced. 220 At the recorded meeting, Puccio and Borg attempted to persuade Driesen that it was in Dreisen's interest to provide Puccio with information impeaching Lindenauer. They told Driesen that they had heard that, as the result of Lindenauer's testimony, Driesen had been named in a sealed indictment by the Queens grand jury. Though he feigned ignorance, Driesen, who had signed a cooperation agreement with the Queens County District Attorney, already knew that he had been indicted. Borg and Puccio argued that the Queens County indictment might never be unsealed if federal prosecutors were unsuccessful in building the instant case around Lindenauer. Puccio accordingly asked Driesen throughout the meeting whether Lindenauer had severe emotional problems and whether Driesen knew other things that might help Puccio undermine Lindenauer on the witness stand. 221 Each time the topic of discussion turned to Lindenauer, however, Driesen--who had been instructed by the FBI not to discuss either Lindenauer or the Friedman case with Puccio--would change the subject, otherwise act unresponsively, or give Puccio answers that were inconsistent with the testimony he later gave at trial. For example, at several points during the meeting, Driesen would avoid discussing Lindenauer by asking Borg and Puccio whether it would be possible to obtain firmer information about the Queens County investigation. At other points, Driesen would answer inquiries about Lindenauer with responses such as You're asking me to what? I, uh, to say that he has severe emotional problems? and I don't know what it is you want me to say about Lindenauer. At one point, in response to a direct question from Puccio, Driesen denied having any connection with Lindenauer's and Manes's attempt to acquire an ownership interest in a psychiatric hospital in Queens through extortion. At trial, Driesen testified to the contrary, and stated that he had pleaded guilty to state misdemeanor charges in connection with the scheme. At least twice during the meeting, Puccio stated that all he wanted was to know the truth about Lindenauer. Puccio also asked Driesen if the room in which they were meeting, Driesen's office, was bugged. 222 Toward the end of the meeting, after Borg had pulled Driesen aside, Driesen told Borg: 223 What? Look who's talking. Look, listen to me for a second HAROLD, just lemme talk for one second. Uh, my feeling is, my feeling is that he [presumably Puccio] wants me to say things that are uh, that are not true, and I am uh, I don't know if this whole thing isn't bullshit, I don't know if the whole thing is bullshit HAROLD, I, don't [unintelligible] get me, tell me, questions, give me the questions, give me the answers, give me the uh, uh, what does an indictment have, it has numbers on it, gimme the numbers of the indictment, show me something that is true, HAROLD, because this is bullshit. I think that I'm being, how do I know that I'm not just being scared by him to make his case? 224 After an unintelligible response from Borg, the FBI's tape reveals that Driesen then asked Borg: [W]hat does he want me to say? According to the transcript, Borg's reply was: [unintelligible] not interested in that right now. And the last portion of the transcript of the tape reads as follows: 225 HB [Borg]: Who's the [unintelligible] 226 JD [Driesen]: What, yeah, bugged. Goodnight. 227 (BACKGROUND NOISES). 228 JD: Who is it? 229 (BACKGROUND NOISES). 230 JD: You see, you see two tricky guys playing chess? You see, uh, lemme shut everything off, lemme shut this off. 231 KS: This is Special Agent KEN ST. GERMAIN, the sound that [unintelligible] 232 JD: That's uh, running. Put it off, it's running. I think it's got a pause button. 233 KS: [unintelligible] 234 JD: I don't, anybody ... 235 KS: [unintelligible] 236 KS: The time is now 11:14 P.M., June 3, 1986, and I'm going to deactiviate this recorder. 237 JD: [unintelligible] Whoever said he's not a sharp guy, PUCCIO, uh, did you, did you see us pussyfooting in there? 238 KS: Yeah. 239 JD: What does he want me to say? And, you know, he wants me to say he's crazy? 240 (END OF CONVERSATION). 241 At the September 24 hearing, which was held in camera, Puccio expressed his outrage at his having been taped by the government. He accused the government of having tried to set me up, an understandable reaction in light of the fact that some of Driesen's responses might readily be interpreted as inviting Puccio to suborn perjury. The United States Attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, denied this accusation, claiming that [t]he subject of this investigation was Mr. Borg, not Mr. Puccio. Giuliani claimed that the government had been investigating Borg for obstruction of justice and had been also seeking to determine how Borg had acquired secret information about the state grand jury testimony of the government's star witness, Lindenauer. Puccio, however, stated that Driesen's indictment had been leaked to the press by the Queens District Attorney and was all but common knowledge. Giuliani further stated that although 242 there was a period of time in which Mr. Borg was representing that Mr. Puccio could do things which under one interpretation could be considered to be improper or criminal[,] [w]hen we reviewed that tape we came to the conclusion that there was no such conduct, and closed, even if you want to call it that, any investigation of Mr. Puccio. And that's months ago. 243 Giuliani explained that the government had revealed the existence of the tape because Driesen might be called to testify, and that while [w]e don't think it bears on the trial [or is] relevant to cross-examination, the government thought it would be fair for [Puccio] to know [about the tape] when he cross-examines Mr. Driesden [sic]. Judge Knapp expressed his view that the tape was irrelevant to the trial. After Puccio vowed that he would complain to the Director of the FBI, the matter was seemingly dropped. 244 The tape recording surfaced once again as an issue during trial, however, on October 23, the day before Driesen originally was scheduled to testify. Puccio expressed the view that if Driesen's credibility were brought into question, Friedman should be allowed to present evidence that Driesen had lied during the recorded meeting when asked about Lindenauer and the instant case. But because Puccio, as a witness to that meeting, could not bring that out, Puccio argued that Driesen's testimony should be excluded in light of the government's failure to try to disqualify Puccio once it had decided to use Driesen's testimony. See, e.g., United States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26, 34-35 (2d Cir.1984); United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064, 1074-75 (2d Cir.1982). Giuliani responded by arguing that Driesen wasn't lying.... He was doing precisely what he was instructed to do by the FBI, which was not to get into discussions about Geoffrey Lindenauer or the case. Giuliani also stated shortly thereafter that Driesen lied in the sense he was a cover, undercover agent, [in] the way an undercover agent is instructed to lie, but that of course we didn't instruct Driesen to lie. Judge Knapp concluded that even if Driesen would lie in that situation, that fact would have at most a piddling impact upon Driesen's credibility. 245 On October 28, 1986, just before Driesen took the stand, Puccio again argued vigorously for the exclusion of Driesen's testimony on the ground that the recorded conversation constituted valuable impeachment evidence that Friedman could not use. In particular, Puccio speculated that Driesen, for reasons of his own, had lied to them [the government] when he said that Harold Borg was going to supply him or talked about supplying him with Grand Jury material. The district court, however, rejected Puccio's arguments, observing that the Driesen tape doesn't strike me ... as very persuasive impeachment. The court added that I think you would be foolish to bring it out.... But you made a beautiful record. 246 From these curious facts now comes a curious appellate claim: In a convoluted attempt to invoke our decision in United States v. Iorizzo, Friedman asserts that Puccio may have been representing Borg while representing Friedman during the trial in this case. According to an affidavit filed by Friedman in the district court in conjunction with a motion subsequent to this appeal for a new trial, Puccio had represented Borg in a criminal investigation at one time. Whether that representation continued through the trial of the instant matter is not clear. 247 However, even assuming that Puccio had represented Borg at the pertinent time, and that cross-examination of Driesen with regard to the June 3 meeting would have been adverse to Borg's interests (an heroic assumption), we fail to perceive a conflict of interest. Specifically, we fail to see either (1) how the taped meeting could have been used to bolster Friedman's defense or (2) how the existence of the tape or of the taped meeting itself could have affected Puccio's conduct of that defense. Any attempt to use the Driesen tape was obviously fraught with risk for Friedman and would have surely been, as Judge Knapp put it, foolish. Driesen's credibility would not have been damaged by evidence of dissembling when he was operating under the FBI's instructions. Instead, cross-examination of Driesen about the events of June 3 would likely have done nothing except bring to the jury's attention the fact that the government had at one point decided to investigate Friedman's lawyer. If that fact would have had any effect on the jury, it probably would have prejudiced the defense. 248 Moreover, even the most cursory examination of the record reveals a much sounder reason for Puccio's failure to cross-examine Driesen than a supposed conflict of interest. Cross-examination was unnecessary. A number of far more cogent impeaching facts were elicited by the United States Attorney in his direct examination of Driesen. Specifically, Driesen had pleaded guilty to federal and state charges relating to his friendship with Lindenauer. He had in the recent past habitually used cocaine. He had also served as the psychiatric consultant to Lindenauer's sham clinic and had allowed Lindenauer, whom he knew held only a phony Ph.D., to use his office to treat patients. In addition, Driesen's testimony, which largely recounted conversations with Lindenauer about Manes, was cumulative. All defense counsel thus simply made light of Driesen's testimony by not even bothering to question him. Accordingly, we conclude that the Driesen tape would have been of no use to Friedman's defense, and that there was thus neither an actual conflict of interest nor a lapse in Puccio's representation of Friedman. 249