Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------ x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
:
- against :
:
NORAMIE JASMIN,
:
:
Defendant.
:
------------------------------------------------------------ x

No. 13 Cr. 297 (KMK)

GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION FOR A RULING IN LIMINE REGARDING
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE

PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Attorney for the United States
of America

DOUGLAS B. BLOOM
Assistant United States Attorney
- Of Counsel -

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 2 of 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2 
A. 

The Charged Bribery Scheme .......................................................................................... 2 

B. 

The Background Evidence ............................................................................................... 4 

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 9 
The Government Should Be Permitted To Introduce the Background and Other Act
Evidence .................................................................................................................................... 9 
A. 

Applicable Law .............................................................................................................. 10 

B. 

Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 13 
1. 

The Background Evidence Is Admissible as Direct Evidence.........................13 

2. 

The Background Evidence Is Admissible To Rebut Mens Rea and
Entrapment Defenses .......................................................................................16 

3. 

Rule 403 Does Not Bar Admission of the Evidence........................................19 

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 20 

i

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 3 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------ x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
:
- against :
:
NORAMIE JASMIN,
:
:
Defendant.
:
------------------------------------------------------------ x

No. 13 Cr. 297 (KMK)

GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION FOR A RULING IN LIMINE REGARDING
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE
The Government respectfully submits this memorandum (i) to provide the defense and
the Court with notice of certain evidence that the Government will seek to introduce at trial as
direct evidence of the charged bribery schemes, as other-act evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) of
the Federal Rules of Evidence, and to rebut a potential entrapment defense; and (ii) to seek an in
limine ruling prior to trial on the admissibility of that evidence.
The defendant was, at all relevant times, the Mayor of Spring Valley, New York (the
“Village”). The allegations in the Indictment center on a community center project (the
“Community Center Project”) in the Village that the defendant believed was being constructed
by two developers who, in reality, were a cooperating witness (the “CW”) and an undercover
FBI agent (the “UC”). At trial, the Government expects the evidence will show that the
defendant engaged in a scheme to obtain an undisclosed 50% ownership interest in the
Community Center Project in exchange for her use of her authority as Mayor to obtain the land
on which the project was to be built.

1

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 4 of 23

As described further below, the Government requests that this Court admit evidence of
the defendant’s relationship with the CW during the time period prior to and incident to the
emergence of the charged scheme. During that time, the defendant asked the CW to use his
influence to get the Rockland County Board of Elections to invalidate absentee ballots that were
sent in support of candidates for the Village Board who were unfavorable to the defendant. This
evidence is probative of the background of the offense and the nature of the relationship of trust
between the participants. It is properly admitted as either direct or other-act evidence.
In addition, the Government seeks to introduce evidence showing that in the Summer and
Fall of 2011, the defendant discussed with the CW: (a) foreclosing on a parcel of land adjacent to
Village Hall (the “Village Hall Property”) and owned by a developer that owed $75,000 to the
Village and transferring the property to the CW in a rigged bidding process; and (b) using
eminent domain to obtain a parcel of land on which a developer was constructing a hotel (the
“Hotel Property”) and then selling the land back to the developer to assist the developer both in
breaking his partnership with another developer and in avoiding repayment of a debt. Evidence
of these conversations should be admitted to rebut any defense based on mistake, lack of intent
or knowledge, or entrapment.
BACKGROUND
A.

The Charged Bribery Scheme
From at least September 2011 through April 2013, Jasmin, then the Mayor of the Village,

engaged in a scheme with the UC and the CW to obtain financial benefits in exchange for her
assistance in procuring land and money to develop the Community Center Project. In exchange
for her vote as Mayor and a Village Trustee in support of the project and the provisioning of land

2

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 5 of 23

for the project, Jasmin demanded a secret ownership stake in the company that was to purchase
the property from Village (the “Company”). Jasmin believed the Company was controlled by
the UC and the CW.
In support of the scheme, Jasmin negotiated her stake in the Company, rejecting an offer
of 20% and demanding a 50% share. She also directed the UC and CW to find two other
individuals to bid on the project so that the bidding process appeared fair and her vote neutral
and unbiased. On or about October 21, 2012, Jasmin met with the UC and two individuals,
whom she understood were associates of the UC available to pose as competing developers (but
who were actually undercover FBI agents), at a hotel in White Plains, New York. During that
meeting, Jasmin coached the other participants on how to make presentations on the project to
the Village Board of Trustees in a fashion that would ensure that the one in which she had a
financial interest would succeed while the other two failed. During that session, Jasmin told the
UC to pretend like the UC did not know her, told one of the other undercover FBI agents to
provide a false background, and told an undercover FBI agent information about the Village that
she then told the agent to pretend not to know because it could only have come from Jasmin. On
or about October 22, 2012, the UC and one of the other undercover FBI agents made a
presentation to the Village Board. The next day, the Village Board met to discuss the
presentations and to vote on whether to permit the defendant to negotiate a contract with the
Company. During that meeting, a Village trustee suggested that Jasmin could negotiate with the
Company without the Board’s approval. In response, Jasmin stated: “I cannot sit in behind
closed doors with a developer to negotiate on behalf of the Board. I can’t do that. So, the Board
of Trustees has to be aware of all the time, so therefore, I am not going to do that . . . .”

3

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 6 of 23

In order to ensure that she would receive her share in the Company but that her
ownership stake would remain hidden, Jasmin provided the CW with a relative’s name and
Social Security number and $600. She expected the CW to incorporate a new parent company to
the Company with the $600 and issue shares in that company in her relative’s identity. Finally,
Jasmin agreed to steer to the Company New York State funding for road work that a New York
State Senator had pledged to provide to the Village.
B.

The Background Evidence
1.

The Village Hall Property

Between August 2011 and February 2012, Jasmin and the CW discussed a $120,000 loan
that Jasmin made of Village money to a developer (“Developer #1”) who was constructing a
project on the Village Hall Property. In particular, they discussed that Developer #1 had failed to
pay $75,000 of the loan back, the Village Hall Property was in foreclosure, and that Jasmin
would force Developer #1 to sell the property to the Village or the CW on favorable terms for the
Community Center Project.
For instance, on or about August 2, 2011, Jasmin and the CW met at a hotel in Suffern,
New York to discuss, among other things, the Community Center Project. During the
conversation, Jasmin said “Guess what’s going to happen. He paid back 50,000. . . . 75 he’s
spending, right? So they’re in foreclosure. I can’t lose that money. By the end of the year, it
should be in, otherwise we have to put [U/I] on the jobs. I have to do that, you know.” Later in
the conversation, Jasmin said “The only thing I’m going to do with [Developer #1] . . . I’m going
to put that lien on his house, his wife is going to find out, and he’s doomed. Simple. . . . Listen, I
tried to help him. I . . . I’m not supposed to loan money from the Village money, I’m not

4

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 7 of 23

supposed to do that. And I took the risk and I did it for him. And I convinced the Board it’s a
good program, so they, they agreed.” Jasmin said “The Village gonna get that property. You’re
not gonna do the [U/I]. . . . What do you want me to do? Seriously? You want us to acquire the
parcels? . . . I can. That’s why I need people on my board. If I have people, I can pick from the
reserve. Let’s say if it’s three I can pick one and bond two. I can do that. We have a good bond
rating.” The CW then asked how much of the Village money Jasmin could spend to acquire the
Village Hall Property and Jasmin responded “I can get ten [million] yeah but I need, I need four
votes.” Jasmin and the CW then discussed an upcoming election for Village Board of Trustees,
and the need for candidates favorable to Jasmin to win, culminating in the Election Fraud
scheme, described in further detail, below.
On or about December 14, 2011, the CW and Jasmin spoke by telephone. During the
call, Jasmin said:
That is something I want to talk to you. Don’t say anything. They
called the State Comptroller’s Office to audit the Village, like risk
management. So I called them and I talked to the guy and he said,
I said we just had an audit done, so if they can wait until January, I
could send them a copy so they can see, you know, where to start
whatever they are looking for. You understand? . . . It would not
be good for me if they found out, uh, that there is a pending
$75,000, you know, somewhere. So I’m nervous about it. So I
kept asking [Developer #1] if he can get the money. It seems like
he’s struggling so no one wants to help him.
The CW asked “Can it hurt you if that comes out?” JASMIN replied, “Yeah. Oh, definitely. So
I have to vouch for the money, you understand? . . . It’s due since November. He should’ve
returned it since this past November.” The CW said “And it shows up on the books?” Jasmin
said “It was . . . yeah, of course. Everything that comes out or is spent, it gets, it will.” The CW
said, “Is it your problem or maybe the old board that could be in trouble?” Jasmin said:
5

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 8 of 23

Well, since I’m the signing officer. Because the Board approved,
but I signed off. Because for the check to be released I have to
sign off. . . . I am the Mayor. I’m the Chair, so everything that
happened in the Village or in any community, the person is always
to blame. Not the members. The members always pull
themselves, even if they approved it or not. . . . [I]f he gives it back
the books will balance. I keep telling, I keep pushing him to do so.
Pushing him to borrow it from someone. Why can’t you do
something like that. But he keeps saying in two weeks I’m gonna
get it. In three weeks . . . . I’m praying for a miracle. Hopefully he
will get it. If not, so I don’t know what’s gonna happen.
On or about February 3, 2012, Jasmin and the CW met at a hotel in Suffern, New York.
During that meeting, Jasmin told the CW that “I’m gonna see if you can get the parcel from”
Developer #1. They discussed a price for the parcel that the Village could pay. Later in the
conversation, Jasmin and the CW discussed, in substance, Jasmin pressuring Developer #1 to
take the CW on as a partner by refusing to purchase the Village Hall Property and demanding
repayment of the outstanding $75,000, thereby forcing Developer #1 to find someone who could
repay the loan. The CW said “You know what we can do. Let me ask you this question: You
want to me think of something of a way? We could both make a couple dollars in a smarter
way?” Jasmin said “How?” The CW said “If you put the pressure on him. I come in and buy it
for him for a huge price. I bailed him out. . . . And you put, squeeze the pressure, he’s gonna
come to someone that’s willing to partner up with him.” Jasmin said “Okay.” The CW said “I
walk in and say; and he has to get, he has your seventy-five. He doesn’t have five cents to his
name, right I mean?” Jasmin said “I regretted so much that I did that – I don’t know. I, I, I
always [U/I]. But I have to stop. But anyway, so, um. Okay, you want me not to buy.” The CW
said “Right. Something if you don’t buy but you put the squeeze on him.” Jasmin said “Okay
not to buy and him not to pay the 75.” And the CW said “Right.”

6

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 9 of 23

2.

The Hotel Property

In or about the Fall of 2011, Jasmin told the CW that a developer (“Developer #2”) had
approached her about using eminent domain to take a parcel of land on which Developer #2
intended to build a hotel so that Developer #2 could dissolve his partnership. In substance,
Developer #2 asked Jasmin to have the Village condemn the property and then resell it to
Developer #2, thereby enabling Developer #2 to build the property without his partner and to
avoid repayment of debt on the property. Jasmin, in turn, offered to give the property to the CW
for development of the Community Center Project.
On or about August 4, 2011, Jasmin and the CW spoke by telephone. During the
conversation, the CW asked, “Yesterday [Developer #2] wanted it should be condemned?”
Jasmin said:
He said to me; take it take it take it [U/I] Mayor take it take it take
it. When you finish takin’ it I wanna come back in ten days and
propose to you my plan and he wants to do a catering hall and also
60 rooms that uh and uh he-he wants to bring uh a nice restaurant.
He wants to do everything, to do it himself. He partnered with a
with another guy. So the reason that he said to take it then that
would break his partnership with the other guy and I told ‘em both
of them have to sign off on it. He said yes, he will bring his
partner to sign off and then they would start from scratch.
On or about August 5, 2011, Jasmin and the CW met at a restaurant in Monsey, New
York. During the conversation, the CW said, “Tell me, what’s, once again what‘s with the
[Developer #2’s] story.” Jasmin replied:
Come on Chief, I [U/I], I told you what I did. I said I’m going to
[U/I]. So what I’m I’m gonna do, I’m waiting for Sunday or
Monday, I’m gonna ask them to draft an agreement for the men
and they’re gonna sign. I said the village is going to take over and
we’ll pay them for what it’s worth and then they can come back
and see the village. That’s my plan, and what I’m gonna do, I’m
7

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 10 of 23

gonna open it as a bid so that people can come and bid on that
place. I wanna do this, I wanna do that, the one that I like, I’m
gonna pick. So, if I like yours, I pick you. If I don’t like it, you
can place it where the sun doesn’t shine.
Jasmin continued, “make sure from that time to that time you don’t raise my pressure. Hmm?
And you [U/I] me like a happy [U/I] little girl. Okay? Fair enough? . . . I’ll give it to you.”
3.

The Election Fraud

On or about September 15, 2011, Jasmin and the CW discussed an upcoming election for
Village Board of Trustees and Jasmin’s fear that 60 absentee ballots would cause her preferred
board candidates to lose the election. Jasmin then asked the CW to use his influence with the
Board of Elections to “bury” the absentee ballots.
For example, Jasmin told the CW that, “I spoke with [U/I] uh, they are going to open
those things next week. I don't know if I'm going to survive until next week because I'm very,
very nervous about this.” The CW asked, “how bad do we need it? Jasmin said:
What do you mean how bad do we need it? What did you mean
how bad do we need it? We need it badly. I'm serious. . . . If there
something more than life, that’s what I need. We need more than
life. So, there’s sixty out there [U/I] may be more but sometimes
they eliminate some because of the postmark thing. So I'm hoping
that’s not the case. I’m hoping that that’s the case. But I’m hoping,
you know, we can get as many for my guy, but so far. . . . Yeah, I
would want you to if you can bury for Demeza, she told me
Demeza [U/I] Board of Elections.
The CW asked Jasmin if she really wanted him to bury the votes and Jasmin replied, “What kind
of question is that? Is this, do you want that. Is that what I want. Are you serious? You should
not even ask me things like that, of course.” The CW then asked “So, to bury those, how much
is it worth? Is this that important? I am asking, is it that important that it pays to?” And Jasmin
responded:
8

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 11 of 23

It is important because if you don’t get rid of those sixty, let’s say
each candidate grabs like maybe twenty, fifteen, I don’t know.
Jacques may not make it so we need, we need. If those numbers is
ours, fine. But at this point of time, I am not sure. If you send the
person that I asked from the Jewish community. I don’t know,
maybe this-- It’s not helping me, it’s not helping me.
Later in the conversation, the CW said “I could do one of the two. In order to ask to nix
it, to disappear, to bury the sixty votes. . . . I could only ask one. I can’t ask two favors. You
understand? . . . So, that’s only one. So, that could just be invalidate.” Jasmin responded,
“That’s it. If that is the case, that is where we have to go. Get on with it.”

ARGUMENT
The Government Should Be Permitted To Introduce the
Background and Other Act Evidence
The evidence described above is admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and
Second Circuit precedent. The background evidence is admissible because it (i) explains the
relationship of trust between Jasmin and the CW; (ii) describes the background of the charged
scheme and Jasmin’s motive and intent; and (iii) provides context for the subsequent
conversations that are at the core of the charged offenses. The evidence of Jasmin’s prior misuse
and discussion of misuse of her office, along with the background evidence, is admissible (i) to
rebut any purported lack of intent on the part of Jasmin and (ii) to counter the defense of
entrapment, should Jasmin assert such a defense, by establishing a lack of inducement and
Jasmin’s predisposition through her readiness and willingness to commit the charged offenses
and active design of the scheme. The proposed evidence also withstands any objection under
Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence because none of it is more inflammatory than the
charged offenses.

9

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 12 of 23

A.

Applicable Law
Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows the admission of uncharged crimes,

wrongs, or other acts for purposes other than proving propensity, “such as proving motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of
accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The Second Circuit “has adopted an ‘inclusionary’ approach to
other act evidence under Rule 404(b), which allows such evidence to be admitted for any
purpose other than to demonstrate criminal propensity.” United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153,
156 (2d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50, 57 (2d Cir.
2011). When deciding whether to admit such evidence, district courts consider “whether (1) it
[is] offered for a proper purpose; (2) it [is] relevant to a material issue in dispute; (3) its probative
value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect; and (4) . . . an appropriate limiting
instruction” is warranted. United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d at 156; accord United States v.
Curley, 639 F.3d at 56-57.
The Government can rely on other-act evidence to establish motive, opportunity, intent,
knowledge, and/or absence of mistake. See United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1182 (2d
Cir. 1993) (“Where a defendant claims that his conduct has an innocent explanation, prior act
evidence is generally admissible to prove that the defendant acted with the state of mind
necessary to commit the offense charged.” (citing United States v. Ramirez Amaya, 812 F.2d
813, 817 (2d Cir. 1987))). A defendant’s intent is directly put at issue when there is an argument
that she was “merely present” at the place where the alleged offense occurred, and was not
involved in any illegal activity. See United States v. Aminy, 15 F.3d 258, 260 (2d Cir. 1994)
(“Where, for example, the defendant does not deny that he was present during a narcotics

10

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 13 of 23

transaction but simply denies wrongdoing, evidence of other similar narcotics involvement may,
in appropriate circumstances, be admitted to show knowledge or intent.”); United States v.
Ramirez, 894 F.2d 565, 568-69 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding that when the defendant “disavows
awareness that a crime was being perpetrated” and the government bears the burden of proving
knowledge “as an element of the crime, knowledge is properly put in issue”).
When determining whether Rule 404(b) governs the admissibility of particular evidence,
the Second Circuit has cautioned that relevant evidence of a crime is not limited to “that which
directly establishes an element of the crime.” United States v. Gonzalez, 110 F.3d 936, 941 (2d
Cir. 1997). In keeping with that principle, evidence that is properly classified as direct evidence
falls outside the scope of Rule 404(b). See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22, 37 (2d
Cir. 2012). It is well established, for example, that evidence is admissible as direct evidence of
the crimes charged, and not considered Rule 404(b) evidence, if it (i) “arose out of the same
transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense,” (ii) “is inextricably intertwined with
the evidence regarding the charged offense,” or (iii) “is necessary to complete the story of the
crime on trial.” United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39, 44 (2d Cir. 2000) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Hsu, 669 F.3d 112, 118 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing
Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44).
Whether considered direct evidence or other act evidence, uncharged acts are admissible
as background evidence in case involving multiple participants where they are used to (i) explain
the development of the illegal relationship between the participants; (ii) explain the mutual
criminal trust that existed between the participants; and/or (iii) complete the story of the crime
charged. See United States v. Mercado, 573 F.3d 138, 141-42 (2d Cir. 2009); United States v.

11

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 14 of 23

Williams, 205 F.3d 23, 33 34 (2d Cir. 2000) (upholding admission of prior act evidence
involving charged co-conspirators “to inform the jury of the background of the conspiracy
charged, to complete the story of the crimes charged, and to help explain to the jury how the
illegal relationship between the participants in the crime developed” (citations omitted)); United
States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61, 73 (2d Cir. 1996) (other act evidence admissible “to show the
background of a conspiracy or the development of a relationship of trust between the
participants”); United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 566 (2d Cir. 1996) (“One legitimate purpose
for presenting evidence of extrinsic acts is to explain how a criminal relationship developed; this
sort of proof furnishes admissible background information in a conspiracy case.”); United States
v. Oliviere, 740 F. Supp. 2d 414, 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“It is well established in the Second
Circuit that uncharged evidence of other acts is admissible to show the background of a
conspiracy or a relationship of trust.”).
Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence authorizes the exclusion of relevant evidence
only if its “probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice,
confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403 (emphasis added). All evidence of guilt is, of course,
prejudicial, in the sense of disadvantaging the defense, but that is not the same as being
“unfairly” prejudicial. Costantino v. Herzog, 203 F.3d 164, 174 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Because
virtually all evidence is prejudicial to one party or another, to justify exclusion under Rule 403
the prejudice must be unfair.” (emphasis in original)). Evidence that is neither “more
sensational” nor “disturbing” than the charged crimes will not be deemed unfairly prejudicial.

12

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 15 of 23

United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990); accord Curley, 639 F.3d at
59.
B.

Discussion
1.

The Background Evidence Is Admissible as Direct Evidence

The background evidence should be admitted for at least three independent reasons: first,
it explains the nature of the relationship of trust between Jasmin and the CW; second, it is
inextricably intertwined with the development of the charged scheme and demonstrates Jasmin’s
intent to engage in that scheme; and third, it provides context for the conversations involving
Jasmin that take place in the Fall and Winter of 2011 and 2012, during which time Jasmin is
debating where the Community Center Project should be constructed.
First, the evidence is admissible to explain the nature of the relationship between Jasmin
and the CW and why Jasmin trusted the CW to carry out the charged criminal enterprise. The
evidence establishes that Jasmin engaged in at least three conversations about misuse of her
public office or of the CW’s relationships with other public officials for Jasmin’s benefit at the
very beginning of a bribery scheme that lasted more than 18 months. That Jasmin was able to ask
the CW to engage in patently unethical and, in the case of the election fraud, illegal behavior
involving her misuse of her public position, and not, for more than a year, encounter any
negative consequences, demonstrated that she believed that the CW could be trusted to have
criminal conversations with her. In light of her conversations with the CW early on the recorded
conversations, Jasmin was clearly comfortable that the CW, and later the UC, could be trusted to
engage in unlawful activity.

13

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 16 of 23

This evidence is therefore relevant to establish the nature of the relationship of trust that
existed between Jasmin and the CW, demonstrating that she trusted him to participate in a
bribery scheme that entailed significant risk. This type of background evidence is routinely
admitted to explain how joint participants in a crime formed their criminal relationships. See
United States v. Mercado, 573 F.3d at 141-42 (upholding the admission of prior gun sales
involving the defendant and his coconspirators in a drug prosecution to show “the development
of the relationship” by providing “background for the events alleged in the indictment” so that
“the jury [could] understand the complete story of the crimes charged, or how the illegal
relationship between coconspirators developed” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United
States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 566 (2d Cir. 1996) (“One legitimate purpose for presenting
evidence of extrinsic acts is to explain how a criminal relationship developed; this sort of proof
furnishes admissible background information in a conspiracy case.”); United States v. Rosa, 11
F.3d 315, 334 (2d Cir. 1993) (“[T]he evidence of Rosa’s prior dealings with Melendez was
properly admitted to explain how the illegal relationship between the two had developed and to
explain why Melendez had appointed Rosa to a leading position in the Organization.”); Olivieri,
740 F. Supp. 2d at 422 (evidence of prior payments and gratuities admissible in bribery
prosecution to demonstrate development of “ a relationship of trust.””).
Second, the evidence is admissible background evidence because it is inextricably
intertwined with the charged scheme and demonstrates Jasmin’s intent to engage in that scheme.
Jasmin’s plot to obtain an undisclosed financial stake in the Community Center Project did not
begin in a vacuum. It was during the course and in the context of her corrupt relationship with
the CW that the scheme at issue in this case developed. Throughout the Fall of 2011 and Winter

14

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 17 of 23

of 2012, Jasmin and the CW discussed various possibilities for the Community Center Project,
how Jasmin could obtain Village property for the project through the misuse of her office, and
how, in order for her to do so, she needed the support of other Village Board members that she
trusted, thereby necessitating the election fraud that she asked the CW to engage in.
Thus, the bribery scheme charged in this case arose directly from Jasmin and CW’s prior
dealings and those prior dealings are therefore inextricably intertwined with the charged offenses
and a necessary component of the story because they describe the origin of the bribery scheme
and how the scheme developed. This type of background evidence is admissible to “complete the
story of the crimes charged.” United States v. Williams, 205 F.3d 23, 33 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting
United States v. Pitre, 960 F.2d 1112, 1119 (2d Cir. 1992)). As the Second Circuit explained in
United States v. Roldan-Zapata, evidence of an uncharged but “pre-existing drug-trafficking
relationship between [co-conspirators]” was admissible because it “furthered the jury’s
understanding of how the instant [drug] transaction came about and their role in it.” 916 F.2d
795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990). So too here, where Jasmin’s prior dealings with the CW would enable
the jury to understand how the bribery scheme arose and how it came to be that Jasmin felt
comfortable demanding half of a real estate project for which she had made no legitimate
contribution, the Government should be permitted to provide the jury with a complete picture
through the background evidence. See Mercado, 573 F.3d at 141-42; Williams, 205 F.3d at 3334; Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 70 (2d Cir. 1993) (“It is within the court’s discretion to admit
evidence of acts committed prior to the time charged in the indictment to prove the existence of
the alleged conspiracy as well as to show its background and history.”).

15

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 18 of 23

Third, the background evidence is necessary to provide context for the conversations that
took place with Jasmin as the charged scheme emerged. See United States v. Inserra, 34 F.3d 83,
89 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[E]vidence of other bad acts may be admitted to provide the jury with the
complete story of the crimes charged by demonstrating the context of certain events relevant to
the charged offense”). As described above, as the scheme developed, Jasmin and the CW
discussed various possibilities for obtaining land for the project, including her misuse of her
official position to obtain the Village Hall Property and the Hotel Property. They also discussed
the need to be careful with the other Board members and how, in Jasmin’s view, she needed her
selected candidates to win, leading to her solicitation of the CW to engage in the Election Fraud.
Thus, the background evidence is necessary in order for the jury to understand the full context of
the conversations that culminate in an agreement to build the Community Center Project on a
separate parcel of Village land. See Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44 (prior bad acts are admissible to
“complete the story”).
2.

The Background Evidence Is Admissible To Rebut Mens Rea and Entrapment
Defenses

Separately, the background evidence is admissible to prove fraudulent intent and rebut a
defense of entrapment.
If Jasmin puts her knowledge or intent at issue through her opening statement, crossexamination, or the presentation of evidence, Rule 404(b) authorizes the admission of the
background evidence to prove her culpable mental state. See United States v. Aminy, 15 F.3d at
260 (“Where, for example, the defendant does not deny that he was present during a narcotics
transaction but simply denies wrongdoing, evidence of other arguably similar narcotics
involvement may, in appropriate circumstances, be admitted to show knowledge or intent.”);
16

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 19 of 23

United States v. Pitre, 960 F.2d at 1120 (“Since the intent or knowledge of [the defendants] were
issues in dispute at trial . . . , the district court did not err in admitting evidence of prior narcotics
transactions during the government’s case-in-chief.”).
The background evidence would properly rebut any claim that Jasmin did not intend to
engage in the scheme. The evidence shows that Jasmin not only knew that she was engaged in a
project that involved her misuse of her public office, she openly discussed that subject with the
CW and even solicited his assistance in destroying absentee ballots when she thought it to her
benefit. If Jasmin claims at trial that she did not intend to solicit or receive a bribe or engage in
unlawful activity with the CW, Rule 404(b) authorizes the admission of the background evidence
so that the jury can consider whether that claim is credible in light of Jasmin’s prior, unlawful
dealings with the CW. If Jasmin places her intent at issue, it is proper for that issue to be
resolved by placing it in the full context of what Jasmin knew about her associates and how she
interacted with them vis-à-vis her public position.
Of course, Jasmin can eliminate the issues of intent, knowledge and motive—and thereby
forestall the admission of prior act evidence—either by electing a defense that does not dispute
them or by agreeing to stipulations that remove these issues from consideration. As the Second
Circuit has emphasized, however, “to take such an issue out of a case, a defendant must make
some statement to the court of sufficient clarity to indicate that the issue will not be disputed. A
defendant may not purposely use ambiguity tactically, seeking to gain the one advantage of
barring admission of prior acts evidence by proffering a particular defense theory, only to later
seek the additional advantages stemming from arguing lack of intent to the jury.” Colon, 880

17

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 20 of 23

F.2d 650, 659 (2d Cir. 1989). To forestall the admission of 404(b) evidence on the issue of
knowledge and intent, a defendant must
express a decision not to dispute that issue with sufficient clarity
that the trial court will be justified (a) in sustaining objection to
any subsequent cross-examination or jury argument that seeks to
raise the issue and (b) in charging the jury that if they find all the
other elements established beyond a reasonable doubt, they can
resolve the issue against the defendant because it is not disputed.
United States v. Figueroa, 618 F.2d 934, 942 (2d Cir. 1980). In this case, Jasmin has not
indicated that she will forgo disputing knowledge, intent or motive and, therefore, evidence of
her prior corrupt relationship is properly admissible under Rule 404(b) if she disputes those
issues through her opening statement, questioning of witnesses or introduction of evidence.
Alternatively, if Jasmin suggests, through jury addresses, questioning of witnesses or the
introduction of evidence, that she was the victim of entrapment by Government agents, the
background evidence would be admissible to demonstrate lack of inducement, her ready
acceptance of the criminal scheme and her design of that scheme. See United States v. Cromitie,
727 F.3d 194, 204 (2d Cir. 2013) (entrapment defense imposes “burden [on Government] of
proving predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt”). There are “three circumstances, any one of
which [are] the accepted means in this Circuit of establishing a defendant's predisposition: ‘an
existing course of similar criminal conduct; the accused’s already formed design to commit the
crime or similar crimes; his willingness to do so, as evinced by ready complaisance.’” Id. at 204
(quoting United States v. Becker, 62 F.2d 1007, 1008 (2d Cir. 1933)). Jasmin not only readily
and willingly engaged in the bribery scheme, she proposed ideas for how she could further the
scheme through the misuse of her office, and solicited the CW’s assistance in election fraud
because it would purportedly further the scheme. Thus, the background evidence plainly
18

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 21 of 23

demonstrates predisposition and should be admitted if Jasmin elects an entrapment defense. See
United States v. Dyman, 739 F.2d 762, 770 (2d Cir. 1984) (prior bad acts are admissible to
demonstrate predisposition to rebut an entrapment defense).
3.

Rule 403 Does Not Bar Admission of the Evidence

The background evidence presents little, if any, risk of unfair prejudice or confusion.
Jasmin’s willingness to abuse her official position to obtain land for the CW’s benefit and assist
in the dissolution of a partnership is no more outrageous than demanding a 50% share in a
construction project in exchange for her transfer of public land to the project—the offense with
which she is charged. The Second Circuit has recognized that where, as here, the uncharged
conduct is no more serious than the charged offense, it poses scant risk of unfair prejudice. See
United States v. Williams, 205 F.3d 23, 34 (2d Cir. 2000) (perceiving “no undue prejudice under
Rule 403 [where] the evidence did not involve conduct more serious than the charged crime”).
Furthermore, the evidence that will establish the background evidence—principally the
recordings—is precisely the same evidence that will establish the elements of the charged
offenses. Accordingly, there is no cause for concern that the jury might find the background
evidence more credible or compelling than the other evidence because the same type of evidence
establishes both.

19

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 22 of 23

CONCLUSION
The Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the Government’s in limine
motion.
Dated:

White Plains, New York
March 2, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,
PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney

By:

______________________________
Douglas B. Bloom
Assistant United States Attorney
(914) 993-1934

20

 Case 7:13-cr-00297-KMK Document 390 Filed 03/02/15 Page 23 of 23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
DOUGLAS B. BLOOM, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1746, hereby
declares under the penalty of perjury that:
I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the Office of the United States Attorney for
the Southern District of New York.
On today’s date, I caused one copy of the attached memorandum of law to be filed
electronically and served on all parties of record by operation of the ECF system.
Dated:

White Plains, New York
March 2, 2015

______________________________
Douglas B. Bloom
Assistant United States Attorney