By Josh Resnek
The US Attorney’s office in Boston is fighting allegations that FBI agents have not been keeping with the letter of the law writing FBI 302 reports, or dating them correctly, or releasing them in a timely manner when asked for as part of discovery efforts by criminal attorneys representing clients in cases before the federal court.
In addition, the US Attorney’s office has been admonished by several judges recently in major cases causing a serious ripple among attorneys practicing in the federal courthouse.
In a recent prosecutorial misconduct case filed against Assistant United State Attorney Kristina Barclay and FBI agents handling the federal prosecution of Gary DeCicco, he presented evidence revealing that the FBI had bungled, either intentionally or accidentally, a key 302 FBI report. What was revealed in DeCicco’s case was that there were fewer, missing, pages in FBI 302’s four years after his trial than when the notes were written. In other words, it was presented as evidence to the court four years after it was written in an excised form. That prosecutorial misconduct filing was denied because of its lack of timeliness.
DeCicco is the original owner of the casino land bought by Steve Wynn.
In another case, and with a much higher profile, US District Judge Leo T. Sorokin recently overturned the jury verdicts in the “Boston Calling” case of Kenneth Brissette and Timothy Sullivan. His reasoning was that not only had the prosecution not provided enough evidence but that there was prosecutorial misconduct.
Lori Loughlin’s attorneys recently told US District Judge Nathaniel Gorton that new FBI notes (known as 302s) had just been recently turned over to her legal team. Those notes indicated that the main government witness against her, Rick Singer, felt pressured by the FBI to lie about the conversations he had with Loughlin to get her kids into USC. According to these latest notes, Singer said of his interaction with FBI agents;
“They [FBI] continue to ask me to tell a fib and not restate what I told my clients as to where their money was going -to the program not the coach and that it was a donation and they want it to be a payment.”
Like DeCicco, Loughlin is wondering why this information is coming so late in her defense and if there is any more withheld information that the FBI has accumulated.
Hiding, altering or deleting information that favors defendants is a pastime here. It’s nothing personal Ms. Loughlin, she must certainly understand.
There are still secret documents that the US Attorney is holding related to the trial of three of the business partners in FBT Everett Realty, the small partnership who sold the land to Wynn in Everett.
In a trial that occurred in 2016, there are never before seen 302s and grand jury information that is still being sought after these years after the trial. The government lost that case against Dustin DeNunzio, Charlie Lightbody and Anthony Gattineri, when all three of those charged were found not guilty after a brief jury deliberation.
Anthony Gattineri, one of the FBT owners, is now suing Wynn Resorts in federal court over a handshake deal to make him whole on the nearly $19 million he lost when Massachusetts Gaming helped pressure a discounted sale transaction to Wynn (something we have written on before here). Gattineri is asking for “…the limited disclosure of three FBI 302 Reports and five interview summaries prepared by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, in addition to two grand jury testimony transcripts.” It’s hard to believe that a trial was completed four years ago and the US Attorney’s Office is still protecting this information. Why?
Gattineri is looking for Kim Sinatra’s, Wynn’s former general counsel, 2013 sworn interview related to the application for the casino, her July 17, 2014 grand jury testimony and two FBI 302 reports (January 30, 2014 and February 11, 2015).
This information was not previously provided prior to the DuNunzio/Gattineri/Lighbody trial where Sinatra testified in 2016.
Gattineri is also looking for Matthew Maddox’s, now CEO of Wynn Resorts, grand jury testimony from July 16, 2014. Maddox was scheduled to testify at the three men’s trial but managed to get out of it and head back to Las Vegas.
There are also some FBI notes from February 11, 2015 that Gattienri thinks may be helpful in his current civil case against Wynn. To date, the Assistant US Attorney who lost the case, Kristina Barclay, has refused to hand the documents over.
Barclay was also part of the “Boston Calling” team and was also the big loser on the wayward prosecution of Gary DeCicco, also a previous owner in the land on which Encore Boston Harbor sits.
Gattineri has gone as far as to offer for his attorney, Stephen Gordon, to go into an office at the Moakley Courthouse, without pen, paper or cell phone, and just look at these documents so he can read them. If Gordon were to read something that he thought would help his client’s case, he could then use that as a basis to ask the judge to release the documents. That judge is Nathaniel Gorton, the same judge who glossed over Lori Loughlin’s plea for fairness.
Gattineri’s legal team has been busy taking depositions this year of some people who were at the center of bringing the casino to Everett, including Kim Sinatra (former Wynn), Matthew Maddox (Wynn CEO), Steve Tocco (head of ML Strategies), Robert DeSalvio (former head of Encore Boston Harbor) and even Gattineri himself. Bill Weld, current presidential candidate, is scheduled for some time in the upcoming weeks if he can pull himself from the campaign trail.
It is hard to believe that nearly a year after the casino in Everett opened on a Sunday morning in June 2019, that there are still so many open questions about how the casino made it here. That it may have only happened through the use, and the abuse, of the US Attorney’s office would be disruptive and sensational at the same time.
We at the Herald have asked for more information from the US Attorney’s Office regarding our own mayor Carlo DeMaria. Can you imagine, the US government has a file on Kickback Carlo and we have to ask for it under a Freedom of Information Request? It’s ludicrous.