by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 18 – For days Inner City Press had heard from its sources there would be a "takedown" on February 6, each SDNY Magistrate Judge would handle seven to 10 defendants.
Arrests happen at 6 am. So at 5:55 am Inner City Press tweeted it, first to X subscribers with the spoiler alert: the expectation was that each of the current or former NYCHA employees would be released on bond the same day.
And then hours later at 9:39 am the prosecutors announced it. Media rushed around reporting it. Inner City Press had it first, and after discretely waiting, published it first. Then this thread of presentments, here
Now in Courtroom on 9 Charles Starks, 57, of NYCHA70 with a Big Law CJA lawyer argues for no bond, release on own recognisance. He's accused of $7000 in bribes over 3 years. He's already fired. "This is not Bernie Madoff."
Judge: $50,000 bond; wife can co-sign
On March 5, this defendant's case was indicted and assigned to District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon.
On July 18, Judge Rochon held a status conference with Starks; Inner City Press was there. Starks' lawyer said he might be moving to dismiss under the Supreme Court's decision on June 2024 in US v. Snyder. Judge Rochon gave him until September 16 to make that motion. We will be covering it - as it has implications for the other NYCHA cases, many of which are already pled out.
On September 16, Starks moved to dismiss, noting that the indictment provided "almost no detail on... the timing" - and citing Snyder v. US. In the alternative, Starks asks for a Bill of Particulars.
On October 18, Judge Rochon denied the motion, stating in part that "Starks, however, misconstrues both Snyder and the plain language of the Indictment returned against him. In Snyder, the Court held that the characterization of a given payment as a “gratuity” versus a “bribe” turns not on the timing of the payment, but on whether the official has a “corrupt state of mind and accept[s] (or agree[s] to accept) the payment intending to be influenced in an official act.” Id. at 1955. The key inquiry is therefore “the timing of the agreement” between the parties, “not the timing of the payment.” Id. at 1959. The Snyder Court held that a “reward given after the act,” but “pursuant to an agreement beforehand,” would still constitute a bribe within the meaning of Section 666. Id. at 1959. Indeed, the Court found that Section 666 incorporates the term “rewarded” in addition to “influenced” to precisely capture those arrangements where payment is received only after the official act has been rendered, but pursuant to an existing agreement. Id. Therefore, to the extent that Starks argues that the Indictment is deficient because it suggests that contractors issued payments to Starks only after they had already been awarded no-bid contracts, that argument misses the mark."
Could the applicability of Snyder to these NYCHA cases be headed to the Second Circuit?
Watch this site.
A case is US v. Starks, 24-cr-126 (Rochon)
Watch this site - and these feeds: X and X for subscribers.
And Substack here
***
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
