| In Wake of Vincent Esposito Guilty
Plea Remaining Defendant Arena Threatens No
Stipulations At Trial
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
May 17 – The remaining portion
of the racketeering
prosecution in which Vincent
Esposito on April 10 pled
guilty to extorting a union
official and a financial
adviser, threatens to get
ugly, or at least time
consuming, in the trial before
U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York Judge
Victor
Marrero.
Defendant Steven Arena, it
emerged at a
status
conference
before Judge
Marrero on May
10, has
rejected a plea
offer from the
U.S.
Attorney's office
and now resists
agreeing to any
stipulations in
connection
with the trial.
Assistant U.S.
Attorney
Kimberly Ravener
told Judge Marrero
that what was
scheduled, even
before Esposito
pled guilty,
to be a two
week trial
beginning June
17 might now
go three weeks
or longer. She
said that
Arena through
his lawyer Salvatore
Strazzulla was
resisting
stipulating to
the accuracy
of bank
records and
e-mails.
Judge
Marrero called
this a
radical
position, and
asked
Strazzula to
explain the
basis since
this would
require more
time not only
from the court
but also from
jurors.
Strazzulla
replied that the evidence
against his
client is weak,
with Arena not
appearing in
many of the
videos and e-mail
chains the
government has so far
produced as
discovery.
(In the
complaint, Arena is
accused with
others of
threats to
"induce a
victim into
providing
annual cash
payments...
in order for the
victim to
maintain an
official
position with
a labor
union by
threatening
force and violence.")
Additional
discovery was
provided by
the government
just this
week and the trial will
be pushed back. But
will Arena and
the other remaining
co-defendant
Frank
Giovinco,
reach a
disposition or
guilty plea by
then? Or will
Arena push
the boundaries by
disputing what
have become routine
stipulations? More
on Patreon, here.
Judge Marrero
instructed Assistant
U.S. Attorney
Ravener
to meet with
Arena's
lawyer
Strazzulla about
the
stipulations,
then to write
him a letter
is dispute
still remain.
How far
does a
defendant have
to go in
expediting the
government's
prosecution
of him?
Perhaps this
trial, if
there is one,
will help
illuminate
this. The case
is USA
v. Esposito,
et al.,
18-cr-00014 (Marrero).
Back on April 10 after his
guilty plea, Esposito and two
apparent family member
rebuffed the media at the
elevator, then again on
Mulberry Street. Inner City
Press Periscope video here.
The control date is July 10
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold
Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
