Seabrook v. United States

Background

A jury convicted Norman Seabrook of honest-services wire fraud and conspiracy. The convictions arose from Seabrook’s decision, while president of the Correction Officers Benevolent Association, to invest $20 million of the union’s funds in Platinum Partners in exchange for a personal bribe. Platinum Partners later failed, and COBA lost $19 million of the investment. The Second Circuit affirmed Seabrook’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal.

Seabrook filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to seek relief from a conviction or sentence based on specified serious legal errors. He argued ineffective assistance of counsel and violations of the government’s disclosure duties under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. He also challenged the admission of evidence concerning COBA’s loss, argued that his sentence violated due process because it was disproportionate and penalized him for going to trial, and sought a new trial under Criminal Rule 33 based on a later civil lawsuit involving Platinum Partners’ outside accounting firms.

Rulings on ineffective assistance and disclosure claims

The court rejected all of Seabrook’s ineffective-assistance claims. Applying the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington, the court concluded that Seabrook had not shown either that counsel’s conduct fell below reasonable professional standards or that any alleged error probably affected the result.

The court specifically held that:

- Counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the judge’s relationship with government witness Gilad Kalter or to seek the judge’s recusal. The court found no showing that counsel acted unreasonably or that any alleged conflict prejudiced Seabrook. - Counsel’s decisions about the length and subjects of cross-examination of Kalter and cooperating witness Jona Rechnitz were strategic choices within the reasonable range of professional assistance. - Counsel was not ineffective regarding the Ferragamo bag and cash recovered from Seabrook’s home. The court found the evidence admissible and noted that counsel challenged the government’s interpretation of it. - Counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to Rechnitz’s testimony about bribery of Rob Astorino. The court found the testimony relevant and admissible. - The record showed that counsel did request Brady and Giglio material, contrary to Seabrook’s assertion. - Seabrook’s claim concerning the judge’s questioning of witnesses was barred because the issue had already been decided on direct appeal. - Counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek dismissal of one conspiracy count because the government’s trial evidence was substantial. - Counsel’s work at sentencing was not ineffective. The court found that counsel had made arguments about Seabrook’s background, intent, and responsibility for COBA’s loss. - Seabrook offered no evidence that counsel had been distracted by another case or that any alleged distraction prejudiced his defense.

The court also found that no evidentiary hearing was required because the trial record and other case materials conclusively showed that Seabrook was not entitled to relief on his ineffective-assistance claims.

The court rejected Seabrook’s Brady and Giglio arguments. It relied on its earlier rulings that the materials Seabrook sought, even if they contained undisclosed evidence, would have been cumulative and therefore not material under those disclosure rules. The court stated that challenges to those earlier rulings should be pursued through a direct appeal rather than this collateral petition.

Challenge to evidence about COBA’s loss

The court held that Seabrook’s challenge to the admission of evidence concerning the full extent of COBA’s loss was barred by the mandate rule, which generally prevents relitigation of issues already decided on direct appeal. The court also stated that Seabrook offered no reason to revisit the earlier trial rulings or the appellate decision upholding admission of the evidence.

Motion for a new trial

The court denied Seabrook’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial. It found that the filing of a 2020 civil lawsuit alleging that outside accounting firms helped conceal Platinum Partners’ fraud did not qualify as the extraordinary new evidence required for a new trial. Seabrook and his counsel did not identify specific evidence from that lawsuit that would have changed the trial’s result. The court also held that the auditors’ possible role in Platinum Partners’ fraud was irrelevant to whether Seabrook acted with corrupt intent when he directed COBA’s investment in exchange for a bribe.

Sentence-disparity issue

The court did not finally resolve Seabrook’s argument that his 58-month sentence was disproportionately harsher than the sentences imposed on his alleged co-conspirators or that he received a penalty for exercising his right to trial. The court stated that this issue might have merit because its sentencing expectations had been based in part on the sentence it expected to impose on Murray Huberfeld. After the Court of Appeals changed Huberfeld’s restitution and sentencing framework, Judge Lewis J. Liman resentenced Huberfeld to seven months in custody.

Judge Hellerstein described the resulting disparity as significant and as creating an appearance of arbitrariness and possible racial differentiation. He ordered briefing on the court’s power to resentence Seabrook to reduce or eliminate the disparity. The government’s brief was due March 30, 2022, and Seabrook’s brief was due April 13, 2022.

Disposition

The court denied Seabrook’s petition on all grounds except the disproportionate-sentence issue, on which it reserved judgment. It denied the motion for a new trial and declined to issue a certificate of appealability for the arguments it had resolved.