Baroni Redacted Final Brief

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 33 PageID: 3456
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Honorable Susan D. Wigenton,
United States District Judge
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.
Crim. No. 15-193
WILLIAM E. BARONI, JR. and

BRIDGET ANNE KELLY
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MR. BARONIS FIRST SET OF IN LIMINE MOTIONS
BALDASSARE & MARA LLC

570 Broad Street, Suite 900
Newark, New Jersey 07102
(973) 200-4066
On the brief:
Michael Baldassare, Esq.
Jennifer Mara, Esq.
Dillon Malar, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant William E. Baroni, Jr.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ....................................................................................... 1
II.
THE JERSEY CITY ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM

EVIDENCE AT TRIAL. ................................................................................................... 3
A.
B.
Background ............................................................................................................ 3
1.
The Indictment ........................................................................................... 3
2.
Governor Christies Connection to the Jersey City Allegations. ............... 3
3.
The Governments Pattern of Blaming Mr. Baroni and Ms. Kelly

for the Actions of Others............................................................................ 8
THE JERSEY CITY ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED

FROM EVIDENCE. ............................................................................................ 11
III.
THE VIDEO OF MR. BARONIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE

LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED PURSUANT TO RULE 403.................. 15
IV.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS THAT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM

EVIDENCE...................................................................................................................... 17
A.
V.
VI.
Mr. Foyes Email ................................................................................................. 17

1.
Mr. Foyes Opinion Regarding the Ultimate Issue in this Case .............. 17
2.
Mr. Foyes Hyperbolic and Self-Serving Concerns ............................. 20
B.
The 9/11 Photographs .......................................................................................... 20
C.
Serbia ................................................................................................................ 22
D.
Evidence Regarding an Alleged Conversation from March 2011 Should

Be Excluded Under Rules 401, 402 and 403. ...................................................... 23
E.
Helix and Construction Projects .......................................................................... 24
F.
Ambulance Reports .............................................................................................. 25
G.
Alleged School Delays ......................................................................................... 26
H.
Missing child ........................................................................................................ 27
THE PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD BE LIFTED .................................................... 28

A.
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 28
B.
Good Cause No Longer Exists for the Blanket Protective Order ........................ 29
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 31
I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Mr. Baroni submits this brief in support of his first set of in limine motions. The
governments pre-marked trial exhibits reveal a troubling strategy: try this case about anything
and everything but Fort Lee.
The government hopes to present the jury with weeks of
extraneous testimony and documents, widen the scope of the evidence well beyond what is
alleged in the Indictment, and lay the actions of everyone at Mr. Baronis feet, all the while
ignoring everything that contradicts the governments premature (and now calcified) belief of
what really happened.
For example, the government plans to introduce evidence from two and a half years
before the alleged conspiracy began. The government wants to use every bit of irrelevant and
prejudicial evidence possible, such as photographs of Mr. Baroni and others at the 9/11
Memorial Service in 2013.
The government has marked dozens of exhibits related to
construction in Weehawken and the upper deck of the GWB. In the Sections that follow, Mr.
Baroni demonstrates why the Court should exclude all such evidence. In sum, this case should
be tried based upon the allegations in the Indictment, not a pot pourri of information cobbled
together from an investigation that, in the end, could not locate a viable federal prosecution.
More troublingly, the government wants to blame Mr. Baroni for actions that others have
already acknowledged weere not his doing. Thus, the fact that Governor Christie and others
have stated that the Governor is responsible for cancelling meetings with Mayor Fulop does not
matter to the prosecution. The government plans to blame Mr. Baroni.
All this is even more problematic given what the government continues to ignore.
Merely by way of example, the government does not want to try this case based upon things like
a key text conversation between Governor Christies Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
Christina Genovese Renna and Peter Sheridan, a staffer on Governor Christies re-election
campaign (CCFG), during the Governors December 13, 2013 press conference:
Reporter: Governor, can you say with certainty that someone else
didnt on your staff or in your administration act on your behalf for
the lane closures for political retribution?
Governor Christie: Yeah, I have absolutely no reason to believe
that, Angie, and Ive made it very clear to everybody on my senior
staff that if anyone had any knowledge about this that they needed
to come forward to me and tell me about it, and theyve all assured
me that they dont.
Follow up: Your campaign chief?
Governor Christie: Oh yeah. Ive spoken to Mr. Stepien, whos the
person in charge of the campaign, and he has assured me the same
thing.
Contemporaneously, Ms. Renna had the following text exchange with Mr. Sheridan:
Ms. Renna: Are you listening? He just flat out lied about senior
staff and Stepien not being involved.
Mr. Sheridan: Im listening.
Mr. Sheridan: Gov is doing fine. Holding his own up there.
Ms. Renna: Yes. But he lied. And if emails are found with the
subpoena or ccfg emails are uncovered in discovery if it comes to
that it could be bad.
D11. The government plans to admit irrelevant information while ignoring such texts (of which
there are many). So too does the government plan to call witnesses like Ms. Renna with the
hopes that the defense will not figure out what appears to be clear: that Ms. Renna deleted the
above exchange after the Legislature had issued seven subpoenas, that she never told the
Legislature about the texts, and that she testified under oath before the Legislature in a manner
not consistent with the existence and deletion of those texts.
The Court has broad discretion to ensure that Mr. Baroni is tried based upon actual
evidence related to the Indictment. The relief requested herein will help ensure precisely that.
These motions should be granted in their entirety.
II.

EVIDENCE AT TRIAL.
A.
Background
1.
The Indictment
The government plans to introduce a great deal of evidence regarding the cancellations of
certain meetings between the Governors Office/Port Authority and Jersey City Mayor Steven
Fulop (the Jersey City allegations). The Indictment contains two sentences on this issue:
Wildsteins mention of Fulop [in a text] referred to the
coordinated and deliberate refusal by the Conspirators to
communicate with, meet, or respond to Steven Fulop, the Mayor of
Jersey, beginning in or about late July 2013 because the
Conspirators understood that Mayor Fulop was not endorsing
Governor Christies reelection. [ ]
[P]ull a faps referred to defendant BARONIs and Wildsteins
strategy of scheduling a meeting that they intended all along to
cancel, as they did with FAPS, Inc. (FAPS), a Port Authority
tenant, to punish Mayor Fulop, who had represented FAPS.
Ind. at 13, 21.
The Indictment has no charges based upon the Jersey City allegations. Counts One and
Three allege the same single-object conspiracy:
punish Mayor Sokolich for not endorsing
Governor Christie for re-election. Ind. at 5. Neither of those alleged conspiracies rests on an
overt act related to the Jersey City allegations. Ind. at 24-27. Count Two alleges the misuse of
Port Authority property to punish Mayor Sokolich. Ind. at 28. Counts Four through Seven
allege wire fraud offenses related exclusively to Fort Lee. Ind. at 31-32. Counts Eight and Nine
allege civil rights violations limited to Fort Lee. Ind. at 33-36. Thus, the Jersey City allegations
are truly tangential to all counts and their elements.
2.
Governor Christies Connection to the Jersey City Allegations.
The government attributes the Jersey City allegations to David Wildstein, Mr. Baroni,
Ms. Kelly and the remaining Conspirators. Ind. at 5, 13. Thus, for the purpose of allocating
criminal liability, the Jersey City allegations may only be attributed to conspirators.
As set forth in Mr. Baronis brief in support of his discovery motions, Governor Christie
has acknowledged that he directed the cancellation of the meetings:
Governor Christopher J. Christie advised, in substance, that: (1)
after he learned that a number of his cabinet members were
planning to go to Jersey City to meet with Mayor Steven Fulop, he
expressed the view, although he did not recall to whom, that he did
not think that the meetings needed to occur because Mayor Fulop
did not merit any kind of special treatment; (2) Mayor Fulop was
not a friend or an ally and was an adversary of New Jersey State
Senate President Stephen Sweeney; and (3) Governor Christie did
not want the meetings with Mayor Fulop to have an adverse impact
on his own relationship with Senate President Sweeney.
Govt July 22, 2015 Ltr. at 12, 3.a.
Moreover, the governments pre-marked trial exhibits (when coupled with testimony and
statements provided to the defense) corroborate Governor Christies recollection that he directed
the actions, statements and inaction that comprise the Jersey City allegations. For example:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Bill Stepien <b_
com> wrote:
Continue throwing the Gov/my name around when discussing this with him (assuming it's going to end well, of
course) - it's important he associate a successful conclusion to this with us
From: David Wildstein <d
To: Stepien Bill <b_
>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 8:49 PM

Subject: Fwd: FAPS
Begin forwarded message:

From: Steven Fulop <s
Date: September 25, 2012 8:21:20 PM EDT
To:"Wildstein, David" <
Subject: Fwd: FAPS
FYI. I think things are set on our side. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help close from your side.
From:
<da
To:
Sent:
Subject:
David Wildstein
Bill Stepien <b_
10/17/2012 7:00:31 PM
Re:
I expect to be disappointed but worth taking a shot

On Oct 17, 20 1 2, at 6:56 PM, Bill Stepien <
> wrote :
I hope it's voidable ....pending what happens next year

Thanks a lot I know it was a pain in the ass.
From: David Wildstein <d
To: "Stepien, Bill'' <
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 6:29 PM
Subject:
We have a deal with FAPS, Fulop owes you big time
D8.
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
David Wildstein <

b_stepien
11/15/2012 7:31:11 PM
Re: Text from Fulop
Built a fewemergency exits into deal and can screw him in less than an hour
On Nov15, 2012, at 7:05 PM, b
m wrote:
> Bill. Thanks for your help today. It is really appreciated.Talk soon
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless Blackberry
D9.
From:
To:
Bill Stepien <b_s
Sent:
Subject:
11/28/2012 7:38:42 PM
Re:
David Wildstein
>
Good to hear. I give him less of a chance than most of our other targets....quite the snake. We'll
see....you can't say we haven't tried!
From: David
Wildstein<david.w
To: Stepien Bill <b
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 6:18 PM
Subject:
Good meeting with Fulop today, very open about his intent to endorse -although clearly that's what I wanted to hear
from him
D10.
From:
To:
Bill Stepien
>
Sent:
Subje ct:
9/3/2013 8:07:32 AM
Re: POLITICOs Morning Score: All eyes on Syria 1 week to New York mayoral
primary Paul to stump for Lonegan Christies matching funds DeMaio leaves
House race Ready for Hilary readies for 2014
David Wildstein
Kill it
On Sep 3, 2013, at 7:24 AM, David Wildstein
m> wrote:
_ I have a faps meeting t his week and suspec t they will leave unhappy
On Sep 3, 2013, at 7:01 AM, Bill Stepien <b
> wrote:
O'Toole is mtg w him today. At his request, so he's feeling the heat. Continue to shut him out til
further notice .
On Sep 3, 2013, at 6:55 AM, David Wildstein
> wrote:
What is Fulop status??

On Sep 3, 2013, at 6:38 AM, Bill Stepien
wrote:
D4.
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject :
David Wildstein <

m>
Bill Stepien <b
9/4/2013 7: 02:12 AM
Re: Morris GOP Chairman takes on freeholder candidate from his own party IPoliticker NJ
Exactl y as it was explained.On ice.

On Sep 4,2013,at 6:35AM,Bill Stepien <
m> wrote:
> It went fine.Fulop is clearly in over his head. Kevin, if you believe him,simply told him the facts of life without making
ahard push for his support (which I don't care about anymore).
>
> Stevealso clearlycaresmost about the PortAuthority. Which we need to continue to show him off from.
>
> Steve left saying to Kevin 4 or 5 times, "youv' e given me a lot to think about As Kevin outlined howa good
relationshipwith thegovernor isbeneficial for hisfutureambition
>
>On Sep 3,2013,at 9:46 PM,David Wildstein <dav
wrote:
>
http://www.politickernj.com/68050/morris-gop-chairman-takes -freeholder-candidate-his-own-party
>> Now Iam going to vote forMastrangelo.
>>
How.did OToole/Fulopsummit go?
D5.
3.
The Governments Pattern of Blaming Mr. Baroni and Ms. Kelly for the
Actions of Others.
The Jersey City allegations demonstrate the governments desire to try this case based
upon anything and everything unrelated to Fort Lee, as well as the governments decision to
consistently ignore all statements, actions and evidence that do not fit with its preconceived
notions regarding the lane realignment. For the following three reasons, the Court should decline
the governments request to stray far afield from the allegations set forth in the Indictment.
First, consider the amount of time, energy, witness testimony and exhibits that the
government plans to present regarding the Helix and Construction issues, the alleged March
2011 conversation, and untold testimony and exhibits from 2012 (which the government
exempted Gibson Dunn from producing).
According to the government, everything that
happened at the Port Authority while Mr. Baroni worked there may now be laid at his feet.
According to the government, everything is relevant no matter how temporally or factually
attenuated it is from the lane realignments. The government does not want to focus on Fort Lee.
Rather, the government wants to present the jury with a mountain of other information in the
hopes that during its three week presentation of evidence the jury will be confused and
overwhelmed. When deciding these motions, the Court should remain cognizant of that strategy
and thwart it at every turn.
Second, the Jersey City allegations are no more than a distraction, inserted into this case
to move the focus from what the government ignored. The Court should not permit that to
happen. Consider, for example, the text exchange between Christina Genovese Renna and Peter
Sheridan that occurred contemporaneously with Governor Christies December 13, 2013 press
conference.2
Reporter: Governor, can you say with certainty that someone else
didnt on your staff or in your administration act on your behalf for
the lane closures for political retribution?
Governor Christie: Yeah, I have absolutely no reason to believe
that, Angie, and Ive made it very clear to everybody on my senior
staff that if anyone had any knowledge about this that they needed
to come forward to me and tell me about it, and theyve all assured
me that they dont.
Follow up: Your campaign chief?
Governor Christie: Oh yeah. Ive spoken to Mr. Stepien, whos the
person in charge of the campaign, and he has assured me the same
thing.
Interim Report of New Jersey Legislature, Reid J. Schar (December 8, 2014).
At the exact moment that Governor Christie spoke those words, Ms. Renna had the
following text exchange with Peter Sheridan:
Ms. Renna: Are you listening? He just flat out lied about senior
staff and Stepien not being involved.
Mr. Sheridan: Im listening.
Mr. Sheridan: Gov is doing fine. Holding his own up there.
December 13, 2013 saw a great deal of activity. For a detailed timeline, see the Interim Report at 104-07.
Available at www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/lsi_report.asp.
Ms. Renna: Yes. But he lied. And if emails are found with the
subpoena or ccfg emails are uncovered in discovery if it comes to
that it could be bad.
D11.3
The government has ignored these texts notwithstanding the content (the import of which
is obvious) and the attendant circumstances. For example:
All available information strongly indicates that Ms. Renna deleted those texts
and never turned them over to the Legislature or the U.S. Attorneys Office.
For
example, the texts produced by Ms. Renna between Mr. Sheridan and her stop on
October 26, 2013 and start again on December 19, 2013. Thus, there are 54 days of texts
missing from Ms. Rennas response to the Legislatures and federal grand jury
subpoenas. Interestingly, Ms. Rennas texts with other people are not missing between
those dates.
Mr. Sheridans document production (where these Rennadeleted were discovered) contains the full text exchange, as well as many others from
before and after December 13, 2013. D11.
While under oath before the Legislature, Ms. Renna testified, I didnt hold
anything back with Chris Porrino, didnt hold anything back with Gibson Dunn, not
holding anything back today. Of course, Ms. Renna did hold something back from Mr.
Porrino: her texts stating that the Governor lied. Ms. Renna held those texts back from
Gibson Dunn and stated that Renna recalled listening to the Governors December 13,
2013 press conference but she was doing other things and was not watching closely.
D20. As for holding back from the Legislature, Ms. Renna did not disclose the texts in
The time stamp differs from the time of the press conference because the texts are tracked with UTC time.
10
which she repeatedly states that the Governor lied. She also did not disclose that she
deleted them.
It is unclear when Ms. Renna deleted the texts, i.e., whether was it before or after
the U.S. Attorneys Office publicly announced its investigation on January 9, 2014, or
before or after she received her grand jury subpoena. The government has produced no
forensics from Ms. Rennas phone to demonstrate that a search for the deletion date was
conducted. In any event, it is certain that at the time the texts were deleted there were
seven subpoenas outstanding from the legislature, i.e., the December 12, 2013 document
subpoenas to Wilstein, Baroni, Nunziato, Foye, Fulton, Licorish, and Durando. See
Interim Report at 100. As such, a subpoena was in place at the time of the deletion.
Gibson Dunn never asked Governor Christie, Ms. Renna, Mr. Sheridan or Ms.
Egea about these texts.
Interestingly, when Ms. Renna chose to disclose an email she had deleted on
December 13, 2013, she brought it to the attention of Regina Egea who, as is well known,
deleted numerous texts she exchanged with Governor Christie during critical moments of
PA employees before the Legislature.
B.

EVIDENCE.
The Federal Rules of Evidence, should be construed to the end of ascertaining the
truth and securing a just determination. Fed. R. Evid. 102. When coupled with the Rules
applied in the following discussion, Rule 102 presents the most basic reason why the Jersey City
allegations should be excluded.
First,
Second, and not surprisingly given that the Indictment has a mere two sentences on this
topic, the Jersey City allegations are inadmissible under Rules 401 and 402, i.e., those allegations
are not relevant. No count is based upon those allegations. No overt act is alleged related to the
Jersey City allegations. Those allegations stem from events orchestrated by Governor Christie.
Those allegations are focused for the most part on a timeframe before the alleged conspiracy
began on August 13, 2013. The allegations relate to a different town. When coupled with the
first reason, supra, it is clear that the Jersey City allegations are simply not relevant to a single
element of a single count in the Indictment.
Third, even if otherwise admissible, the Jersey City allegations are inadmissible under
Rule 403, which states:
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the
following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the
jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence.
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
A district court has broad discretion to determine the admissibility
of relevant evidence in response to an objection under Rule 403. United States v. Balter, 91
F.3d 427, 442 (3d Cir. 1996). That discretion is exercised engaging in a balancing test, and
[l]ike any balancing test, the Rule 403 standard is inexact, requiring sensitivity on the part of the
trial court to the subtleties of the particular situation. United States v. Guerrero, 803 F.2d 783,
785 (3d Cir.1986). The inquiry to determine if evidence is prejudicial also requires a factintensive, context-specific inquiry. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 388
12
(2008). In addition to weighing the factors set forth in the rule, the court should plac[e] the
result of that assessment alongside similar assessments of evidentiary alternatives. Old Chief v.
United States, 519 U.S. 172, 185 (1997) (citing 1 McCormick 782, and n. 41 (suggesting
that Rule 403s probative value signifies the marginal probative value of the evidence
relative to the other evidence in the case); 22 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and
Procedure 5250, pp. 546547 (1978) (The probative worth of any particular bit of evidence is
obviously affected by the scarcity or abundance of other evidence on the same point)).
The Jersey City allegations have minimal, if any, probative value. Much of the evidence
precedes August 13, 2013, the date on which the alleged conspiracy purportedly began. The
Indictment alleges no overt acts regarding Jersey City.
No charged offense has anything
resembling a pattern requirement as in a RICO offense. The Jersey City allegations claim a quid
pro quo (preferential treatment for FAPS in exchange for an endorsement), while the Indictment
charges retribution for a failure to endorse. That distinction is significant because the former, if
proven, would establish criminal liability on both sides of the equation, whereas the latter would
seem at this juncture to limit criminal liability to one side. And, as noted, Governor
Christies role in the events upon which the Jersey City allegations are based demonstrate that
those allegations are minimally if at all probative of the charges.
Against this scant probative value, the Court must evaluate the danger for unfair
prejudice, confusion and a waste of time. As the Supreme Court has explained, The term
unfair prejudice, as to a criminal defendant, speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant
evidence to lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to
the offense charged.
Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 180 (citing J. Weinstein, M. Berger, & J.
McLaughlin, Weinsteins Evidence 403[03] (1996)). The Jersey City allegations are not
specific proof to the offense charged, because, as noted, all the counts focus on Fort Lee from
on and August 13, 2013, rather than starting in the fall of 2012. The offenses charged contain no
pattern requirement. Indeed, it appears that the Jersey City allegations make claim of a different
crime, quid pro quo (a FAPS deal for an endorsement), involving others and not Mr. Baroni and
13
Ms. Kelly. And, of course, permitting the jury to hold the Governors actions against Mr. Baroni
and Ms. Kelly is precisely the type of improper basis, against which Rule 403 protects. See
Fed. R. Evid. 403 advisory committees note. The Governors role in, and the potentially
criminal liability of others stemming from the Jersey City allegations will tend to affect
adversely the jurys attitude toward [Mr. Baroni and Ms. Kelly] apart from its judgment as to
[their] guilt or innocence of the crime charged. United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951
(10th Cir. 1999). For all these reasons, the jury should not be invited, therefore, to consider the
Jersey City allegations when determining whether the government has proven its case beyond a
reasonable doubt.4
Lastly, the Jersey City allegations are a waste of time in what will be a long trial in any
event. There is no need for additional exhibits and witnesses on an issue so minimally probative.
To the extent this trial is unnecessarily lengthened, it will inure to the defendants detriment, not
the governments. That is so because the defense case comes last and the longer the jury has
been seated, the more they want to go back to their lives. If the Jersey City allegations add even
three or four days to the trial, it is too much and come the close of the governments case, will
prejudice the defendants. Given the scant probative value, this waste of time carries significant
weight and warrants exclusion of the Jersey City allegations.
*
For all these reasons, the Jersey City allegations should be excluded from evidence. This
exclusion should extend to testimony as well as the pre-marked trial exhibits.
This analysis supports excluding the Jersey City allegations based on concerns for jury confusion.
14
III.
THE VIDEO OF MR. BARONIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE

SHOULD BE EXCLUDED PURSUANT TO RULE 403.
On November 25, 2013, Mr. Baroni testified before the New Jersey Legislature.5 The
government claims that during that testimony Mr. Baroni made false statements as part of a
cover-up. Mr. Baronis testimony was fully transcribed and fully recorded (audio), while
portions of it were taken on two videos. The audio recording is the official record made for and
maintained by the Legislature. Neither the portions of the videos nor the transcription are the
official record. For the following reason, the videos should be excluded from evidence under
Rule 403.
Mr. Baronis testimony before the Legislature is relevant; however, the incomplete
videos are the least probative version of that testimony. The videos are not complete. Nor are
they taken on a stationary camera. Indeed, one version continually focuses on a blond woman in
the audience and moves all about the room. The government wants to show the jury the video
for one reason and one reason only:
combative.
in the sphere of political theater, Mr. Baroni looks
The back-and-forth between Mr. Baroni and, for example, Assemblyman
Wisniewski is politics, plain and simple. Their facial expressions, arm gestures and body
language are not, in any way, probative. Indeed, the interaction between Mr. Baroni and the
politicians is no more than attorneys fighting it out in court only to have a drink together that
evening. But the government wants to show it to the jury because the video in the eyes of the
government just makes Mr. Baroni look bad. It is not his words that interest the government,
but everything else, all of which is unduly prejudicial.
The words are what matter.
Mr. Baroni is not charged with being aggressive and
defending himself against attacks from politicians who do not like him or who want to put on a
show for the cameras in a high-profile matter. The words are probative. And in this setting, the
most probative version of those words are on the complete official record made and maintained
A copy with the two videos the government wants to play for the jury will be supplied directly to Chambers.
15
by the Legislature: the audio recording. That is what the jury should hear to determine whether
or not Mr. Baronis testimony helps the government carry its burden.
On the other side of the 403 balancing come the certainty of delay and waste of time. If
the jury is to see the sparring on that video, Mr. Baroni will show the jury numerous other twohour videos with similar aggression from the legislators, witnesses and so on. In other words,
Mr. Baroni will be forced to put that video in context and that, indeed, will take hours. Under no
circumstances should the government show the jury that video in a vacuum. Mr. Baroni will be
forced to subpoena numerous legislators to trace the prior relationships between Mr. Baroni and
those interrogating him. That will give the necessary context to the video. Mr. Baroni will need
others to explain just what happens at the hearings with respect to the press there, the reporting,
and how the political winds and deals affect the public spectacle of democracy. Context will
take precious time, wasted because there is a more probative, less prejudicial and more
expeditious way to present Mr. Baronis testimony to the jury.
16
IV.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS THAT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE.

The following exhibits and testimony regarding the following topics should be excluded
from evidence:
The portions of Government Exhibit 1131, in which Patrick Foye proclaims his
opinion that state and federal laws were broken (i.e., the ultimate issue for the
jury), as well as his hyperbolic, unfounded, and self-serving concern that patients
were delayed getting to a hospice facility. D16.
Government Exhibits 1104 and 3014-3046, contain photographs from the
September 11, 2013 9/11 Memorial Service.
The portions of Government Exhibits in which Mayor Sokolich is referred to as
Serbia.
Government Exhibit 2095, the 141 pages of ambulance reports from the week of
the closures. (Not included here for HIPAA concerns, but available for delivery
to Chambers.)
Claims that children in Fort Lee were late for school based upon the lane
realignments.
The bases upon which each of these should be excluded are discussed in the following
Sections.
A.
Mr. Foyes Email

1.
Mr. Foyes Opinion Regarding the Ultimate Issue in this Case
On the morning of September 13, 2013, Patrick Foye circulated an email regarding the
lane realignment. D16. In the email, Mr. Foye states, I believe this hasty and ill-advised
decision [to reduce the lanes from three to one] violates Federal Law and the laws of both
states. Mr. Baroni asked the government to redact this sentence based on the reasons set forth
below. The government refused, necessitating a motion for something that, in all candor, the
17
prosecution should have readily agreed to given the black letter law demonstrating that Mr.
Foyes opinion is inadmissible.
While reserving all rights to challenge the admission of this document at trial, the
aforementioned sentence regarding federal and state law should be redacted based upon Federal
Rule of Evidence 701, i.e., the Rule governing opinion testimony by lay witnesses like Mr. Foye.
That Rule states:
If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of
an opinion is limited to one that is:
(a) rationally based on the witnesss perception;
(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witnesss testimony or to
determining a fact in issue; and
(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
Fed. R. Evid. 701.
As discussed in detail herein, Mr. Foyes opinion regarding whether the lane realignment
violated federal and state law the ultimate issue in this case -- fails to satisfy subsections (b)
and (c) of Rule 701, supra.
First, Mr. Foyes opinion will not be helpful to the jury in
understanding his testimony or in determining a fact in issue. Indeed, seldom will be the case
when a lay opinion on an ultimate issue will meet the test of being helpful to the trier of fact
since the jury's opinion is as good as the witness and the witness turns into little more than an
oath helper. Hirst v. Inverness Hotel Corp., 544 F.3d 221, 226 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Mitroff
v. Xomox Corp., 797 F.2d 271, 276 (6th Cir. 1986)). The introduction into evidence of Mr.
Foyes legal opinion may distract jurors from their task of drawing an independent conclusion
regarding the defendants guilt or innocence. Hester v. BIC Corp., 225 F.3d 178, 182 (2d Cir.
2000). For this reason alone, the sentence at issue should be redacted.
Second, Mr. Foyes opinion regarding alleged violations of the law is based upon
specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702, i.e., legal expertise. As the government
has not identified Mr. Foye as an expert, the admission of his legal opinion here clearly
18
contravenes Rule 701, subsection (c). For this reason as well, the sentence at issue should be
redacted from Mr. Foyes email.
Mr. Foyes legal opinion, whether in documentary or testimonial form, should also be
excluded based upon Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403.
Federal Rule of Evidence 401 states that evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence
in determining the action.
Fed. R. Evid. 401. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 commands that Irrelevant evidence is not
admissible.
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 states:
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the
following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the
jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence.
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
In terms of Rules 401 and 402, Mr. Foyes opinion regarding the supposed violation of
federal and state laws should be excluded because it is not relevant. In other words, Mr. Foyes
opinion about the ultimate issue in the case does not have any tendency to make a fact more or
less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401(a).
Even assuming arguendo that Mr. Foyes legal opinion is somehow relevant, it should
nonetheless be excluded pursuant to Rule 403 because its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury.
Permitting Mr. Foye, the sitting Executive Director of the Port Authority, to opine about alleged
violations of the law would be incredibly prejudicial to the defense because there is a substantial
risk that the jury will give such opinion an inordinate amount of weight in their decision-making
process. Likewise, Mr. Foyes legal opinion may confuse and mislead the jury such that they
question whether they may reach a conclusion that deviates from Mr. Foyes. Therefore, the
19
Court should order that the sentence at issue in Mr. Foyes email be redacted (and exclude any
testimony regarding that legal opinion).
2.
Mr. Foyes Hyperbolic and Self-Serving Concerns
In his September 13, 2013 email, Mr. Foye states: I pray that no life has been lost or trip
of a hospital- or hospice-bound patient delayed. Under Rule 403, that sentence should also be
redacted from Mr. Foyes email.
The sentence is minimally probative; it is simply an expression of Mr. Foyes purported
concerns relating to the lane realignment and does not make any fact in the case more or less
probable in this context. That statement, however, is unduly prejudicial. Given its hyperbolic
nature, with its mention of the lives possibly being lost and hospice-bound patients being
delayed, there is a significant risk that it will provoke an emotional response in jurors and lead
them to decide this case on an improper basis. And it bears noting that there is no evidence
whatsoever that anyone died as a result of the lanes being reduced, or that any patients were
delayed in getting to a hospice. There is some evidence of scant and minor delays in ambulance
service, but that evidence does not justify the introduction of Mr. Foyes exaggerated expression
of concern. For all these reasons, the sentence at issue should be redacted from Mr. Foyes
September 13, 2013 email.
B.
The 9/11 Photographs
The government has marked 34 photographs of Governor Christie, Mary Pat Christie,
David Wildstein, David Samson, Mr. Baroni, and others at the 9/11 memorial service on
September 11, 2013 at the World Trade Center. Many of those pictures show the participants
sharing fleeting smiles amidst the services to honor and recall those lost on that terrible day of
national tragedy.
Putting aside the governments attempt to exploit the emotions associated with 9/11,
those photographs should be excluded for a number of reasons under Rule 403. First, the
20
photographs are probative of nothing.
Mr. Baroni has never denied that he attended the
ceremonies or that he spoke with Governor Christie and Wildstein.

Second, the photographs freeze a few moments in time that are not reflective of that day,
thereby giving the jurors the appearance that Mr. Baroni, the Governor, and others did not take
the memorial service seriously. Given the emotions we all feel regarding 9/11, showing such
photographs to the jury is the definition of undue prejudice. Evidence is unfairly prejudicial
if it makes a conviction more likely because it provokes an emotional response in the jury or
otherwise tends to affect adversely the jurys attitude toward the defendant wholly apart from its
judgment as to his guilt or innocence of the crime charged. United States v. Rodriguez, 192
F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir. 1999). Indeed, the 9/11 photographs should be excluded under Rule
403 because they will suggest decision on an improper basis [such as] an emotional one. Fed.
R. Evid. 403 advisory committees note. Lastly, as the Court knows, jury selection in this case
will begin on September 12, 2016, and the trial will commence thereafter, while emotions still
stir from the then-very recent memorial services. There is simply no reason to show the jury
those photographs.
Third, the 9/11 photographs prominently feature David Samson. As the Court knows,
Mr. Samsons very recent guilty plea received a great deal of press. One article mistakenly
reported that Mr. Samson pled guilty in connection with the Fort Lee lane realignment:
David Samson, a close associate of Gov. Chris Christie of New
Jersey, will plead guilty Thursday to a felony in connection with
the federal prosecution of the intentional tie-up of traffic at the
George Washington Bridge in 2013
Several other articles referred to Bridgegate when reporting on Mr. Samsons plea, i.e., Key
Bridgegate Figure to Accept Guilty Plea, Bridgegates Samson Pleading Guilty to Felony
Charge. Thus, there is yet another reason to conclude that the 9/11 photographs (probative of
nothing) will lead the jurors to believe that Mr. Baroni must be guilty in this case because yet
another person, in addition to Wildstein, has pled guilty.
*
*
21
as Mr. Baroni suggested to the government be replaced with Mayor Sokolich.
Such a slight alteration would not change the meaning of any of the message, nor would it affect
the governments theory of this case.
D.
Evidence Regarding an Alleged Conversation from March 2011 Should Be

Excluded Under Rules 401, 402 and 403.
The government plans to introduce evidence regarding an alleged conversation between

David Wildstein and Mr. Baroni during March 2011. Ind. at 7. The Indictment alleges that in
March 2011, Wildstein told Mr. Baroni that they could use the Local Access Lanes as leverage
against Mayor Sokolich. Id. at 7. That is the lone sentence regarding March 2011 in the
Indictment. For the following reasons, all evidence regarding that alleged conversation should
be excluded under Rules 401, 402 and 403.
The alleged March 2011 conversation should be excluded because it is not relevant to any
charges. The Indictment explicitly alleges that the conspiracy charged in Count One did not
begin until two and a half years later, on August 13, 2013. Ind. at 5, 2. Moreover, the
Summary of the Conspiracy begins in August 2013. Ind. at 5. All of the alleged overt acts are
dated on or after August 13, 2013. Ind. at 24-27. Every single remaining Count allegedly began
on August 13, 2013. This alleged conversation is simply not probative of what happened over
two years later. Indeed, there is not one allegation made on any date between March 2011 and
August 13, 2013. Thus, the governments theory is that Wildstein and Mr. Baroni had this
conversation that began a conspiracy, then they went dark for over two years without any
communication or acts, only to start this up again in August 2013.
At some point, such
allegations become too temporally attenuated to be probative of a later alleged agreement. Here,
too much time passed and the conversations should be excluded under Rule 401 and 402.
Even if the Court concludes that the alleged March 2011 conversation is probative, it is
only minimally so. The danger for jury confusion and wasting time substantially and easily
outweighs the slight probative value. Conspiracy law is occasionally difficult even for lawyers
to comprehend. The Court will instruct the jury on conspiracy law, but there is no need to make
it even more confusing by telling the jury about a conversation from March 2011, but that the
23
conspiracy did not begin for another two and a half years, and that nothing happened in between.
Moreover, the March 2011 conversation is simply a waste of time and cumulative.
The
government has, and plans to use, ample other evidence regarding the alleged conspiracy that
occurs much closer in time, i.e., from the summer of 2013.
Thus whatever value the
government places on this alleged conversation it is cumulative. As for wasting time, the more
topics about which David Wildstein testifies, the longer he will be cross-examined by lawyers
for Mr. Baroni and Ms. Kelly. That is to say nothing about adding time to his direct and/or the
need for a defense case to address that alleged conversation.
It is worth noting that the government now relies upon events alleged to have happened
in March 2011, yet the government was only too happy to ease Gibson Dunns burden by
limiting the original 2010 subpoena date to post-January 1, 2013. Again, the governments
concern for Gibson Dunns well-being outweighed anything resembling a search for the truth.
The Court denied Mr. Baronis motion for documents post-2010. Gibson Dunn repeatedly
referred to that subpoena as seeking blunderbuss discovery. The government having turned
a blind eye to discovery prior to January 1, 2013 and having made sure not to join Mr. Baronis
motion for more information now seeks happy to expand the timeframe. If this were not a
criminal case with very high stakes, the governments actions would be laughable. This motion
should be granted and any evidence of the alleged conversation should be excluded.
E.
Helix and Construction Projects
The government plans to try this case based largely on temporally and factually unrelated
evidence regarding construction on the helix ramp at the Lincoln Tunnel in Weehawken and
other construction matters (the Helix and Construction cases). A review of the governments
pre-marked trial exhibits exemplifies just how much court time will be devoted to these ancillary
matters:
HELIX 1002, 1003, 1005, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1014, 1015, 1027, 1031, 1034, 1037,
1038, 1044
24
GWB REPLACEMENT and CONSTRUCTION 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1067, 2017,
2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033,
2034, 2035, 2036, 2037, 2038, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2050,
2051, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2055, 2056, 2057, 2059, 2060, 2061, 2063, 2064, 2065, 2066, 2067,
2068, 2069, 2070, 2071, 2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077, 2079, 2081, 2082, 2083, 2084,
2085, 2086, 2087, 2088, 2089, 2090, 2093, 2094, 2096, 2099, 2100, 2102
SOUTH MARGINAL NJDOT PROJECT 59, 61
OUTERBRIDGE CROSSING PAVING PROJECT 1050, 1053, 1054, 1067
PULASKI SKYWAY PROJECT 2078, 2080
MOVIE SHOOT 2098
Thus, in addition to the Jersey City allegations, the government plans to take untold days
presenting evidence far afield from the allegations in the Indictment in the hopes that the jury
will be overwhelmed by information only to conclude that the defendants must be guilty
because of all the information however tangential presented. As gatekeeper, the Court
should not permit that to happen, if only to avoid lengthening the defense case that will be
necessitated to answer the Helix and Construction cases. Not to mention that the government
seeks to confuse the jury by presenting evidence of a Lincoln Tunnel Helix construction project
even though the allegations regarding Fort Lee do not involve a construction project, but, by the
governments own indictment, a traffic study. The government knowingly conflates the two out
of either ignorance or a desire to confuse the jury.
F.
Ambulance Reports
Government Exhibit 2095 is a 141-page document comprised of internal records from the
Fort Lee Ambulance Corp. Those records should be excluded. First, it is not apparent as it
should be when assessing relevance the governments intended use for these records. Until the
government can articulate some plausible basis for relevance, Exhibit 2095 should be excluded
under Rules 401 and 402. Second, these records are unduly prejudicial. There is no need to
show the jury 141 pages of ambulance records simply to enflame the jurors and invite an
evaluation of the based upon a purely emotional reaction. See Rule 403. Moreover, Exhibit
25
2095 is cumulative because there are ample reference to ambulances and alleged delays in other
likely admissible evidence such as emails, texts, and testimony.
G.
Alleged School Delays
The government wants to lead the jury to believe that children were late to school based
upon the lane realignment. E.g., Ind. at 9. Any such testimony should be excluded because the
evidence is clearly to the contrary. Specifically,
Thus, where testimony is so directly contradicted, it is insufficient to claim, as the

government no doubt will, that discrepancies go to weight. There is simply no good faith basis
for the government to elicit testimony regarding children being late because of the lane
realignment. And, even if there was, delaying children is far more prejudicial than probative
because to be sure allegations that the charges negatively affected children will lead the jury
26
to evaluate the evidence based upon an emotional reaction. That is explicitly precluded by Rule
403.
H.
Missing child
The Court should exclude all evidence relating to an alleged missing child, later found,
during the lane realignment. The government has marked certain exhibits that make reference to
a missing child, e.g., an email from Tina Lado, but there does not appear to be any evidence
substantiating this incident. Thus, the evidence at issue is minimally probative of any issue in
the case. The missing child evidence is unduly prejudicial, however, given the emotional
response the jurors are likely to have to the suggestion of a child victim of the lane closures.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 403, evidence relating to a missing child should be excluded.
27
V.
THE PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD BE LIFTED

A.
Introduction
Our judicial process is generally an open one that permits the public to attend trials and
view judicial records. U.S. v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 206 (3d Cir. 2007). The openness of our
judicial system promotes public confidence, diminishes possibilities for injustice,
incompetence, perjury, and fraud, and provide[s] the public with a more complete
understanding of the judicial system. Id. (citing Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d
Cir.1988)). Only in limited circumstances should a court restrict or close judicial processes to the
public. Id.
The issuance or continuance of a protective order restricting the publics access to the
judicial process is only justified if good cause exists pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure. United v. Wecht, 484 F.3d at 210-11 (citing Pansy v. Borough of
Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 1994). Good cause is established on a showing that
disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. The injury
must be shown with specificity. Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples
or articulated reasoning, do not support a good cause showing. Id. (emphasis added) (quoting
Pansy, 23 F.3d at 786).
It is well-established that a district court retains the power to modify or lift
confidentiality orders that it has entered. Pansy, 23 F.3d at 784. When determining whether to
modify or lift a protective, order the Court should use the same balancing test that is used in
determining whether to grant such orders in the first instance. The Third Circuit Court of
Appeals has identified the factors to be considered, including:
1)
whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests;
2)
whether the information is being sought for a legitimate
purpose or for an improper purpose;
3)
whether disclosure of the information will cause a party
embarrassment;
28
4)
whether confidentiality is being sought over information

important to public health and safety;
5)
whether the sharing of information among litigants will

promote fairness and efficiency;
6)
whether a party benefitting from the order of confidentiality

is a public entity or official; and
7)
whether the case involves issues important to the public.
Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995).
B.
Good Cause No Longer Exists for the Blanket Protective Order
The Court issued a protective order on the discovery materials in this case on July 7,
2015. (See Protective Order, ECF No. 22.)
The Protective Order provides that [t]he
Confidential Discovery Materials shall be used by defense counsel only in the preparation of the
defense in this case and that [t]he Confidential Discovery Materials shall not be disclosed by
defense counsel to anyone other than the Defendants and any agent working at the direction of
defense counsel in this matter (collectively, together with defense counsel, the Defense).
(Protective Order, ECF No. 22, 1-2.) The protective order concerns the use of materials
produce by the Government which contain the following categories of information:
(1)
information of a personal nature including, but not limited
to, marital and other intimate relationships, minor children, and
personal financial matters;
(2)
individually identifiable health information protected under the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and information regarding
individuals medical conditions;
(3)
personal contact information such as home addresses, home
telephone numbers, personal cell numbers, and personal email
accounts;
(4)
information about governmental and business matters that are not related
to the allegations contained in the Indictment; and
(5)
the applications and affidavits in support of search
warrants obtained during the investigation (the Confidential
29
Discovery Materials).
(Protective Order, ECF No. 22 at p.1).
Good cause no longer exists for the continuance of this protective order as to categories 4
and 5 in the above list or as to Jenks, Giglio and other materials. Protective Orders are not
entered into in order to permit trial in secret. See e.g., Wecht, 484 F.3d at 206. Upon the
issuance of the Protective Order, neither the Court nor the parties contemplated the continued
protection of these materials up until the start of trial. In fact, the Protective Order states that
[t]he Defense may disclose the Confidential Discovery Materials for use at trial, subject to Fed.
R. Crim. P. 49.1 and any other applicable law or rules. (Protective Order, 5.) Furthermore, the
Government itself anticipated the lifting of this Protective Order upon the eve of trial, stating in
its Brief in Support of its Motion for a Protective Order:
In any event, the publics interest in these proceedings will
eventually be served by an open and public trial. The Government
has an obligation to present all admissible evidence to prove its
case; the defense has an obligation to use all admissible material in
zealously contesting the charges; and the public has an
unquestioned right of access to trial proceedings. That
constellation of interests will erase any remaining privacy right in
the admissible evidence. At present, however, the Discovery
Materials are not trial evidence, and the public has no right of
access to them.
(ECF No. 14, at 10.)
The Defendants trial is set to begin in just over one month. Shortly, over the course of
trial, discovery materials and the identities of witnesses will be made public. Accordingly, the
Protective Order should be modified as it no longer serves a legitimate purpose with trial
approaching in such a short time.
Accordingly, the Protective Order should be modified with respect to the information
about governmental and business matters that are not related to the allegations contained in the
Indictment and to the applications and affidavits in support of search warrants obtained during
the investigation as well as to the Jenks and Giglio materials.
30
VI.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant all the relief requested. Mr. Baroni
respectfully joins Ms. Kellys in limine motions.

Respectfully submitted,
BALDASSARE & MARA, LLC
By:
Michael Baldassare
By:
Jennifer Mara
BALDASSARE & MARA, LLC
570 Broad Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Telephone: (973) 200-4066
Facsimile: (973) 556-1076
Attorneys for Defendant William E. Baroni, Jr.
Dated: August 9, 2016
31

Baroni Redacted Final Brief

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Baroni Redacted Final Brief

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 33 PageID: 3456

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Crim. No. 15-193

WILLIAM E. BARONI, JR. and

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MR. BARONIS FIRST SET OF IN LIMINE MOTIONS

BALDASSARE & MARA LLC

Attorneys for Defendant William E. Baroni, Jr.

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 33 PageID: 3457

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ....................................................................................... 1

THE JERSEY CITY ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM

The Indictment ........................................................................................... 3

Governor Christies Connection to the Jersey City Allegations. ............... 3

The Governments Pattern of Blaming Mr. Baroni and Ms. Kelly

THE JERSEY CITY ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED

THE VIDEO OF MR. BARONIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE

ADDITIONAL MATTERS THAT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM

Mr. Foyes Email ................................................................................................. 17

Mr. Foyes Hyperbolic and Self-Serving Concerns ............................. 20

The 9/11 Photographs .......................................................................................... 20

Evidence Regarding an Alleged Conversation from March 2011 Should

Helix and Construction Projects .......................................................................... 24

Ambulance Reports .............................................................................................. 25

Alleged School Delays ......................................................................................... 26

Missing child ........................................................................................................ 27

THE PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD BE LIFTED .................................................... 28

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 33 PageID: 3458

The government hopes to present the jury with weeks of

The government has marked dozens of exhibits related to

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 4 of 33 PageID: 3459

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 5 of 33 PageID: 3460

THE JERSEY CITY ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM

punish Mayor Sokolich for not endorsing

Governor Christies Connection to the Jersey City Allegations.

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 6 of 33 PageID: 3461

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 7 of 33 PageID: 3462

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 8 of 33 PageID: 3463

Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 8:49 PM

Begin forwarded message:

I expect to be disappointed but worth taking a shot

I hope it's voidable ....pending what happens next year

David Wildstein <

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 9 of 33 PageID: 3464

Bill Stepien <b_s

What is Fulop status??

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 10 of 33 PageID: 3465

David Wildstein <

Exactl y as it was explained.On ice.

According to the government, everything that

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 11 of 33 PageID: 3466

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 12 of 33 PageID: 3467

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 13 of 33 PageID: 3468

THE JERSEY CITY ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 14 of 33 PageID: 3469

A district court has broad discretion to determine the admissibility

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 15 of 33 PageID: 3470

No charged offense has anything

Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 180 (citing J. Weinstein, M. Berger, & J.

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 16 of 33 PageID: 3471

Case 2:15-cr-00193-SDW Document 151 Filed 08/10/16 Page 17 of 33 PageID: 3472

THE VIDEO OF MR. BARONIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE

in the sphere of political theater, Mr. Baroni looks

The back-and-forth between Mr. Baroni and, for example, Assemblyman

Mr. Baroni is not charged with being aggressive and