Keeping this Case in the Sunshine

It is my intention to keep all proceedings against Paul Bergrin in the sunshine. In other words, as a result of misinformation often stated in various newspapers and in the New York Magazine article from June of 2011, all documents and information in Paul Bergrin proceedings that can be published for public viewing will be. We want you to know what has been done to Bergrin.

At this point it is not clear why DOJ prosecutors requested and were granted that documents relevant to government misconduct in this case be sealed. I can only assure you that these documents were not filed in camera or under seal by the defense. The document in question here is the certification filed by the defense of the private investigator's findings that lists many witnesses and includes their statements of government coercion and subornation of perjury in this case.

The defense certainly has no desire to hide these documents so damaging to the government from public view. The party that chooses to hide this information is, of course, the government. There is no valid reason for this certifcation to be hidden from public view. In the document, the defense identified witnesses by number and without gender so the government couldn't identify them and try to intimidate them for giving statements.

The main reason that I started this blog is to help prevent the government from being able to silently railroad Paul Bergrin, as much as is possible. I have just added more documents to the Documents page of this blog, including the Second Superseding Indictment that will apply in the upcoming trial as a result of the counts not being severed this time. I also included juror notes from the first trial and numerous other documents.

As soon as it's practicable, I will be uploading more documents, including the certification that is now sealed. Know that the defense and its supporters want to keep these proceedings and all documents filed available for the public to view without exception. The entire point of this blog is to present facts and truth and keep this case in the sunshine. Hopefully this certification will be unsealed soon.

Motions Denied

I received an email a couple of hours ago:

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.

A Big Welcome to Judge Cavanaugh

If federal prosecutors in New Jersey with the Paul Bergrin case were judge shopping, I think they would have avoided the Honorable U.S. District Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh. In fact, as much as I like Judge Martini, I believe that prosecutors would have been better off keeping him. It is obvious to me that they had no choice in which judge was assigned to the Paul Bergrin case and there will be a fair trial after all.

At this point in time, the trial date is set for October 1, 2012. However, briefs will be filed in August in relation to severing the counts as Judge Martini did in the last trial. Oral Argument is set for September 12, 2012. If the counts are not severed and everything is tossed together, it is most likely that the trial date will be reset for a later date.

In my opinion from a defense perspective, there are good reasons to sever the counts and equally good reasons not to. I already have a thought on which way Judge Cavanaugh will go, but won't tip my hat quite yet. I also have no intention of stating the reasons to go either way. I'm going to let each side fight it out without my voice. What good am I, right?

From what I have read around the internet, U.S. District Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh is a no nonsense, facts only type of guy. I haven't had any contact with Paul to know his thoughts, but I already like this new judge. Figure, at least if you bothered to read the trial transcripts, that a facts only judge would have scoffed at the lousy excuse for evidence presented by the DOJ. Remember? We had a parade of jailhouse snitches, informants, and a variety of other miscreants that just expected us to believe what they said, even though many had been caught lying to the feds and in court in past.

A no nonsense judge won't appreciate all of the Rule 35 / 5K1.1 patients in the line-up. A facts only judge wants exactly that - facts. Nothing that any of the so-called witnesses stated was factual and it was all 'he said, she said' based on what served the prosecution best. The prosecutor's opening statement was pure conjecture and it was backed by concocted stories told by proven liars and others with something substantial to gain. How much more of that can prosecutors offer us? Well, ask Nino Lyons. He has a story to tell, or rather his attorney does:

Prosecutors' conduct can tip justice scales

Justice Dept. agrees to pay $140,000 to man wrongly jailed

A big welcome to the Honorable U.S. District Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh!

You will find several new documents added on the "Documents" page of this blog.

Appeals Court Opinion is Biased

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has issued a clearly biased opinion favoring overzealous DOJ prosecutors in Paul Bergrin's case. U.S. District Judge William J. Martini has been removed from all Bergrin proceedings and the case will be reassigned to a different district court judge. There is, of course, much more involved and the documents are linked below.

I have much more to say on this matter; however, consider this best served with a thorough reading of the opinion first. The Appeals Panel only ruled this morning and the documents are just now available to me. I will be posting my thoughts sometime in the near future.

For a summary of the opinion, visit:

By Jason Grant / The Star-Ledger

U.S. Court of Appeals removes federal judge from two cases, including Paul Bergrin's trial


By David Porter / NorthJersey.com

Court removes judge from NJ attorney murder case


To read the actual documents (PDF):

Bergrin Appeals Court Judgment 15 June 2012

Bergrin Appeals Court Opinion 15 June 2012

Paul Bergrin Trial Transcripts

UPDATE - Trial transcripts no longer available


Welcome to Paul Bergrin on Trial, a blog started to support Paul Bergrin, a zealous defense attorney facing almost insurmountable legal hurdles in a yet unknown number of trials. This is a transitional post from Paul Bergrin Trial: The Summation on my other blog. From this moment forward you will find any posts, updates, documents, and transcribed testimony posted herein.

Please do view the "Documents" and "Comments" pages linked in the main navigation of this blog. You are free to download copies of the transcribed court days from the last trial that resulted in a hung jury and any other documents listed. This is for the many people interested in the case and trials of Paul Bergrin that were unable to attend and to shine a bright light on the problem of government misconduct.

Note that all documents were uploaded to my website and I have no form of any application to track visitors whatsoever on that website (except at the ISP/server level) so your visit is truly private. You may change the file name of any document and post to your own website. Anything posted on this blog uses a Creative Commons license, unlike my other blogs and website. Read the specific use available by going to the Creative Commons link in the right sidebar.

We currently await the decision from the three-judge Appeals panel in reference to the goverment's attempt to have the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge William Martini removed from the next Bergrin trial and decide evidentiary related issues from the last trial brought forth by prosecutors.