U.S. v. Curescu

In prosecution on bribery charges stemming from scheme in which defendant hired third-party to obtain authorization for zoning variance on defendant's construction of two residential units by paying $8,000 bribe to zoning inspector, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's request for new trial on grounds that prosecutor knowingly used false testimony from third-party about prior $8,000 bribe that third-party had made on behalf of defendant. While third-party misspoke as to number of residential units that were at issue with respect to prior bribe, witness' misstatement did not undermine main inference that defendant had knowingly been paying bribe money, rather than using lawful expediting service. Dist. Ct. also did not err in allowing third-party to testify as to her understanding of statements made by defendant in recorded conversation since said testimony was based on witness' own mental processes.