← Back to home

Document A-5914

AI Analysis

Summary: The document is a transcript of an oral argument where an attorney, Mr. Shechtman, is discussing the ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudice prong in a case involving multiple defendants and allegations of backdating. He argues that the government's case focused on backdating, but the evidence shows a more complex situation. The attorney compares his client's situation to that of another defendant, Mr. Brubaker.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it reveals the legal arguments and strategies employed by the attorneys in a significant case, and provides insight into the court's thought process and potential concerns.
Key Topics: ineffective assistance of counsel prejudice prong in a legal case distinctions between defendants in a case involving backdating
Key People:
  • Mr. Shechtman - attorney arguing a case
  • Judge Easterbrook - judge referenced in the argument
  • Mr. Parse - defendant in the case
  • Mr. Brubaker - defendant in the case for comparison

Full Text

CAC3PARC 12 1 where you can have waiver, but ineffective assistance. And I 2 think it is that that Judge Easterbrook had in mind when he 3 said you have to think about each of these doctrines separately 4 and you can probably have every combination of them. 5 THE COURT: All right. 6 MR. SHECHTMAN: Look, on the prejudice prong, I would 7 just say this. There were acquittals on all but two of these 8 counts. Mr. Parse is not situated that much differently than 9 Mr. Brubaker, and the proof as it came in didn't come in much 10 differently. There is a sort of lovely irony here that the 11 government cooperator who the Jenkins lawyer dealt with him was 12 actually a witness, and so, the Kramer Levin firm got to 13 cross-examine him. And in a sense having him as a cooperator 14 was helpful to their side because they established that their 15 client, like the taxpayers and everyone else, was told 16 repeatedly this is lawful. What distinguishes these two men is 17 the, quote, backdate. 18 And what I've tried to say in my papers is I think the 19 government was very good at trial in turning this into a 20 backdating case. I don't think that's what the Deutsche Bank 21 records show. They are doing these in February and March and 22 putting them on February and March statements and they're 23 putting "as of." They're then going out to what are very 24 accomplished tax preparers who were getting February, March 25 statements. And know there was a mistake and are then filing SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00010169