Sadly, all Paul's motion were denied. The case is not severed, all 4o4b evidence comes in, and the motion to have a pretrial hearing on government misconduct was denied. There was no oral argument. That the judge would write up his reason for denying the pretrial hearing. The judge adopted all of Judge Martini's former rulings.I will post the documents as they are available to me. Now I can state my thoughts.
I understand that many attorneys will disagree with me and I know that Bergrin will; however, I do understand why U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh ruled as he did in each situation. I consider the denial to sever the case a good thing. Though I understand all too well how government misconduct works, when the victim witnesses to said misconduct fear having their names on sworn affidavits, not much can be done as it is too complicated to decide if it is indeed fear of retribution by the government or simple agreement with a private investigator just because he is there at the moment. Paul Bergrin is not guilty of any counts, so with or without the 404(b) evidence, he can prevail.
I do understand the reasons for wanting the counts severed and separate trials. However, if I were the defendant, there's no way I could manage multiple trials. It would be far too stressful and take too long. Throw it all together and I will sort it out piece by piece, sentence by sentence, word by word until it ends. Bergrin has already dealt with one trial that resulted in a hung jury and mistrial. How many more could he deal with? Make no mistake: This will be a long trial.
Most informants are like putty in the hands of government agents and prosecutors. They become puppets that state exactly what they're told to state. They each have something to gain, no doubt. The argument could be made that the victims / witnesses to the misconduct said anything to get the private investigator out of there. Not that I believe this in any way, shape, or form, but I do believe that such a thesis is the basis for an argument if the motion for a pretrial hearing had been granted.
In my opinion, it is better that no pretrial hearing in reference to the government misconduct was granted. I can only compare it to a situation with my co-defendant at my own trial. If only he had shut the hell up and not told prosecutors that he intended to tell the truth on the stand. The intelligent route would have been to wait until he was on the stand and simply tell the truth. I'd place a bet that they couldn't have sentenced him to 36 months in prison if he had told the court and jury exactly what agents and prosecutors did to him and the truth about our relationship. Instead he alerted prosecutors as to what he intended to say on the stand and they literally threw him out of the courthouse. The state did not call him to testify. Do you blame them?
In my opinion, the 404(b) evidence can't harm Bergrin. So much has been twisted in this case by a government with an agenda. Each statement by the criminal informant witnesses should be analyzed and gutted. When you get down to the basics, there is no evidence of the criminal acts that he has been indicted on.
When all is said and done, much of the case is over when the jury is chosen. A juror like me, my son, or even any of my friends and acquaintances that were aware of one or more acts of misconduct or even a single lie on the part of prosecutors or agents would not convict on any count. Let's face it... there are lots of people in Newark that have had such experiences or had relatives that have suffered at the hands of a bad cop or a lying prosecutor and I seriously doubt that the government will be able to eliminate each and every one in voire dire.
Look for the documents referenced herein soon.