U.S. v. Coscia

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion for new trial on charges of commodities fraud and “spoofing” that was filed after defendant’s convictions on said charges were affirmed on direct appeal, even though defendant argued that new evidence discovered after his convictions indicated that there were data errors in one summary exhibit presented to jury, and that subsequent indictments against other traders for similar spoofing activities, i.e., placing large and small orders where defendant never intended to execute large orders, undercut government’s characterization of defendant as unique or trading outlier. Any error in data as to percentage of large orders cancelled by defendant was de minimus. Moreover, plaintiff failed to show how limited non-disclosures of accurate data with respect to one of six summary exhibits cast doubt on all six exhibits used by government at trial, or how defendant exercised due diligence to obtain said data, where defendant could have learned of said data prior to trial through use of compulsory process. Also, defendant failed to show likelihood of his acquittal had jury learned of accurate data, where defendant’s own testimony, testimony of his programmer, and testimonies of other traders supported finding that defendant had trading pattern prohibited by charged offenses. Too, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition, where defendant argued that his trial counsel labored under conflict of interest, where counsel had previously represented entity that provided individuals who testified for government and other individuals who had provided evidence favorable to government. While Court of Appeals agreed that conflict of interest existed with respect to prior representation of entity, defendant failed to show how said conflict adversely affected counsel representation of defendant, or that conflict existed with counsel’s prior representation of other individuals, where: (1) counsel had reasonable strategy to acknowledge and justify defendant’s trading activity; and (2) defendant failed to show that counsel obtained confidential information from representation of clients on unrelated matters that was relevant to instant case.