Opinion ID: 510217
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: I said I would get back to him.

Text: 89 Lindenauer testified that he immediately reported Kaplan's offers to Manes. According to Lindenauer, Manes said to me that this was serious money and that the real problem [would be deciding] who would be holding the stock for us. Manes nevertheless observed that [t]his is the kind of problem I like. Within the next two days, Manes told Lindenauer that Friedman should hold the stock for them. According to Lindenauer, Lindenauer then reported back to Kaplan:Q. What did you say to Mr. Kaplan and what did he say to you? 90 A. I told Marvin that we would go ahead with the project itself. I would do everything I could to make sure that he won the contract, and that Stanley would get all the stock for the three of us. 91 Q. What did Mr. Kaplan say to you? 92 A. He said, Fine. 93 Over the next few months, Lindenauer met a number of times with Kaplan and with Robert Richards, president of Citisource, to devise a method of guaranteeing that the RFP for the hand-held computer would be favorable to Citisource. See generally supra Background Part B(5). In April 1983, Lindenauer met with Kaplan in Kaplan's office and said, 94 Marvin, when am I going to be getting the stocks, and what is the amount? 95 And Marvin said to me that there would be 57,500 shares given for me, 57,000 for Donald--500 for Donald, 57,500 for Stanley. 96 I said, What are we--when are we going to get these stocks? 97 Marvin said, Within the next few days. I'll have the stocks drawn up. We just have to go through standard legal procedures in terms of how stocks are drawn up, and then I'll get the shares to Stanley. 98 By early May, however, the stock had not yet been delivered, even though the PVB selection committee was soon to make its choice. Lindenauer testified to the following conversation with Richards: 99 Q. What did you say to Mr. Richards and what did he say to you? 100 A. Bob said to me, Make sure you get the stock before the selection committee meets, because he said, you've got to understand something. The Kaplan[s] are pigs and they may play all kinds of games with you. Make sure you get the stock. 101 Q. What did you say to Mr. Richards? 102 A. I said okay, I would. 103 Q. Did you say anything else to Mr. Richards? 104 A. Yes. I said, you know, I hear what you're saying, but to me, they would be foolish to play any kind of silly games, because if they played any kind of games, it wouldn't get past. And even if we passed it at the selection committee, if they were still playing games, it had to go through the Board of Estimate, and Donald, Stanley--and Stanley would stop it. So I said, I'll do it, but it seems to me just dumb that they would try to pull something like that. 105 Approximately one year later, the contract was approved by the Board of Estimate, of which Manes was a member. 106 Kaplan launches two attacks upon the evidence detailed above. First, Kaplan challenges Lindenauer's credibility by pointing to the alleged evolution of Lindenauer's testimony between his appearances before state and federal grand juries and his testimony at trial. Such a challenge to the credibility of a witness, however, must be made in cross-examination and in subsequent argument to the jury, not in an appellate brief. It is not a function of an appellate court to second-guess a jury's finding on credibility, United States v. Stratton, 779 F.2d 820, 828 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1162, 106 S.Ct. 2285, 90 L.Ed.2d 726, 477 U.S. 906, 106 S.Ct. 3277, 91 L.Ed.2d 567 (1986), and we will not do so here. 107 Second, Kaplan contends that the evidence of his bribe to Manes is insufficient because there is no direct evidence that he had given Citisource stock to Manes with the intention of influencing Manes's exercise of official discretion. Kaplan's view of the evidence is that Manes was Lindenauer's rabbi, or political patron, and that giving Citisource stock to Manes was simply part of the bribe to Lindenauer intended to bring about PVB approval of the Citisource contract. Kaplan is driven to this strained argument, of course, by the need to reduce the predicate acts from two to one in order to upset his RICO conviction. 108 There is, however, abundant evidence of Kaplan's intent to bribe Manes. Manes, one of the most powerful politicians in the City, was a member of the Board of Estimate, a body whose approval was needed to execute the Citisource contract. Given the need for Board of Estimate approval, the evidence that Manes knew the role he was to play in securing that approval, and Manes's request for information as to when the contract would come before the Board of Estimate, the jury clearly could conclude that the stock was a bribe intended to influence Manes's official conduct. 3. Kaplan: Perjury 109 Kaplan also contends that his perjury conviction must be reversed on the ground that his sworn testimony before the SEC was literally true. In that testimony, he was asked why the initial issue of Citisource stock was allocated as it had been, and in particular, why Friedman was the largest shareholder. The relevant portion of Kaplan's testimony--with the allegedly perjurious portion placed in emphasis--reads as follows: 110 Q. The initial shares, were they allocated in any specific sense of the word for different directors or officers? 111 A. Yes. 112 Q. Who made the allocations? 113 A. Al Kaplan. 114 Q. Did he do that by himself? 115 A. Yes. 116 Q. And what basis did he use to make the allocation? 117 A. Same basis that we would have used in every venture we ever went into, my brother and myself. He makes it up, and he says, Here, it is; implement it. That is all I'm willing to sell to any one person. 118 And he has reasons why he feels that this one should get this and that one should get that, et cetera. 119 Q. Is there any reason that you know of why Stanley Friedman received the largest block of shares of the company? 120 A. I don't know about the largest block, because--I would like that question more clarified, because the four of us, KKKK, owned all the shares. And the four of us, as a block, owned more shares than anyone else. 121 Q. Okay. Who was the largest individual shareholder of Citisource? 122 A. I have to look at the prospectus. 123 Q. Go ahead. It indicates-- 124 (Pause). 125 A. As of this date--and I want to preface it by saying of the inside shares--it appears that Mr. Friedman is the single largest stockholder. This doesn't preclude any outside person unbeknown to myself owning a block of more shares. 126 Q. The inside stock that we are talking about right now, is that the stock that was allocated by Albert Kaplan? 127 A. Yes. 128 Q. My question again is, on what basis was the allocation made? 129 A. You would have to ask Al Kaplan. Al Kaplan is my brother, and I never argue with him in that respect. He has his reasons why. He feels that so and so, he should give this to; maybe a moral obligation. I know Stanley has been a friend of ours for a long time, and he has done a lot of things for us for no remuneration. And he has given us a lot of thought and ideas and spent a lot of time with us. 130 I know for a fact that when I spoke to Stanley of my idea, that he did ask and say, If you ever do anything with this company, I would like to partake in it. 131 And on that basis, my brother felt that he is--and Stanley is an individual who at the time was affiliated, if I am correct, with Sachs-Bachman [sic], which is the firm that Ray [sic] Cohen [sic] is with, and it is a very prestigious law firm. 132 And I felt on that basis he would be an asset to us on a national basis--to introduce us, to advise us, to help us in every way possible. And that is the reason why, to the best of my knowledge. 133 The questioning then turned to other topics. 134 The federal perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621 (1982), provides that a witness is guilty of perjury if, while under oath, he or she willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true. This language must be construed strictly. In Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 357-58, 93 S.Ct. 595, 599, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973), the Supreme Court held that Section 1621 does not make it a criminal act for a witness to willfully state any material matter that implies any material matter that he does not believe to be true, even when the testimony is designed to, and does, mislead. Thus, Section 1621 does not proscribe answers unresponsive on their face but untrue only by 'negative implication.'  Id. at 361, 93 S.Ct. at 601. Combating mere unresponsiveness must be left as a challenge to the questioner's acuity. Id. at 362, 93 S.Ct. at 602 (quoting United States v. Bronston, 453 F.2d 555, 563 (2d Cir.1971) (Lumbard, J., dissenting), rev'd, 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973)). Nevertheless, the issue of literal truth is to be resolved by a properly instructed jury. United States v. Lighte, 782 F.2d 367, 374 (2d Cir.1986). 135 Relying on Bronston, Kaplan argues that his SEC testimony, while perhaps unresponsive and incomplete, was literally true. Specifically, he contends that he merely engaged in speculation about the possible reasons his brother allocated the stock, and that these reasons were not false because relatives, friends and employees of the Kaplans were in fact allowed to purchase Citisource stock at a discount. Accordingly, Kaplan submits that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding that his testimony was false. We disagree. 136 Kaplan's testimony on its face refutes his contention that his ultimate response to the questions about the allocation of Citisource stock was framed in speculative terms. Kaplan's efforts to avoid giving a direct answer were worn down by the persistence of his examiner, and despite his evasive remark that [y]ou would have to ask Al Kaplan, he nevertheless concluded: And I felt on that basis he [Stanley Friedman] would be an asset to us on a national basis--to introduce us, to advise us, to help us in every way possible. And that is the reason why, to the best of my knowledge. Kaplan thus stated that he believed that Friedman received his Citisource stock because Friedman's prominence and influence would be an asset to the firm. 137 There was abundant evidence from which the jury could have concluded that this answer was intentionally false. For example, Robert Richards testified that, when he asked Kaplan about Lindenauer's concern about Friedman's stock, Kaplan erupted.... [He] began ... screaming ..., 'It's none of your God damn business what I do. I run the company. I'll make any decision I want to about stock. Richards also testified that, several days after this outburst, Kaplan explicitly admitted that Friedman had been given stock for the purpose of providing shares for Manes and Lindenauer. In addition, both Richards and Lindenauer testified extensively about other discussions with Kaplan about the bribery scheme involving the Citisource stock. Although it may well be true, as Kaplan argues, that his brother performed the actual allocation of the Citisource stock, there can be little doubt that Kaplan knew that Friedman had become Citisource's largest stockholder in order to bribe Lindenauer and Manes. See also supra Discussion Part A(2). Kaplan's perjury conviction is therefore amply supported by the evidence.