Opinion ID: 733247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary of the Government's Case

Text: 10 At trial, the government's position was that Mr. Burns crafted a wide-ranging scheme to attend [Harvard] full time, while receiving a salary and expenses funded by a federal grant despite his not working full-time for Northeast, as required by the contract. The government contended that Burns purposely concealed his attendance at Harvard from both National and Northeast, and misrepresented the amount and nature of the work he performed on behalf of Northeast while he attended Harvard. 11 The government also maintained that Burns leased the Cambridge apartment for his personal use while at Harvard, and not for any legitimate Northeast business. The woman who leased the apartment to Burns testified that he told her that he needed the apartment for the school year only, and asked about a nine-month lease. The government also emphasized that Burns' efforts to secure the apartment began when he was accepted into Harvard. 12 The government relied heavily on the time sheets which Burns admittedly directed his sister to submit on his behalf, and which indicated that he was working full time during regular business hours for Northeast while he was in fact a full-time student at Harvard. The government also placed substantial reliance on the travel vouchers which were submitted by Burns for reimbursement for numerous trips to and from Massachusetts, but which never mentioned Harvard.