Opinion ID: 3192738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Witness Collusion

Text: Lastly, we reject Libous’s argument that the District Court’s guilty verdict on Count Two (2007 tax return) should be overturned because Boemio and Marino, Libous’s accountant, improperly colluded. Specifically, Libous asserts that “Boemio’s testimony that the $30,000 personal check to Libous was a payment for services rendered was materially false.” Def.’s Br. 50. “In order to be granted a new trial on the ground that a witness committed perjury,” however, “the defendant must show that . . . the perjured testimony remained undisclosed during trial.” United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194, 221 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, all of the facts that Libous suggests support his position that Boemio perjured himself were disclosed before or during trial. For example, Libous makes much of the fact that “Boemio had stated in proffer sessions [with the Government] that he had given Libous the $30,000 check to help him repay his student loans.” Def.’s Br. 50. But these same statements were the subject of an extensive colloquy between the District Court, Libous’s counsel, and Boemio during Boemio’s testimony at trial. See A- 193–99.